Official Report 1029KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16511, in the name of Kate Forbes, on protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:26
On 4 July last year, a new Labour United Kingdom Government was elected on a manifesto commitment to “reset” relations with the devolved Governments. Few could fail to welcome that ambition and the chance to turn the page on the disastrous legacy of the previous Conservative Government.
Brexit delivered a double blow to Scotland. First, we were taken out of Europe against the wishes of the majority of Scottish voters, and then, Brexit was used to justify the systematic undermining of the powers of this Parliament—a Parliament for which the people of Scotland voted in a decisive referendum result a quarter of a century ago. Most significantly, that undermining came in the form of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
I will briefly remind the Parliament of what the internal market act does. It was passed without the consent of the Scottish Parliament or of any devolved legislature. It introduces far-reaching and unpredictable new constraints on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It provides UK ministers with an open-ended power effectively to nullify laws that are passed in this chamber. It enables UK ministers effectively to unilaterally alter the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish ministers by allowing currently excluded matters to be caught by what are called “market access principles”.
In that last respect, I will set out the threat. It is a clear possibility, at the very least, that the next UK Government will be a right-wing Administration that is hostile to the national health service funding model. Just this month, the Labour Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said:
“Nigel Farage would introduce an insurance model and charge patients to use the NHS.”
The UK Labour Government itself believes, therefore, that the threat is there to the English NHS.
That is where the internal market act becomes dangerous for Scotland. Schedule 2 to the act allows a UK minister, at the stroke of a pen, to bring
“healthcare services provided in hospitals”
and
“other healthcare facilities”
in Scotland within “market access principles”. In other words, if healthcare services in England are opened up to much greater private provision, we in this Parliament could be powerless to stop that same process here. The act, therefore, is like a ticking time bomb under Scotland’s NHS—one that could be detonated at any time by an ideological right-wing Government at Westminster—and that threat needs to be removed.
The internal market act must be repealed. The previous UK Government insisted that the act was necessary to protect internal UK trade, and that it merely replaced the market rules that we had when we were in the European Union. That is not true. In place of broad legal principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, balanced by proportionality and subsidiarity tests, and sensible derogations for important policy outcomes such as public health and environmental protection, the act introduces rigid statutory requirements that apply automatically and in nearly all cases. It is flatly untrue that the IMA is necessary to protect intra-UK trade. It is perfectly possible to create a balanced, proportionate and rules-based system of regulatory co-operation, if there is good will and political imagination on all sides. That is what we have been trying to achieve through positive engagement with the other Governments of the UK in the development of common frameworks.
It is not just the Scottish Government that is clear that the act must go. The former Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford described the act correctly as a “smash and grab” on devolution. Less than 18 months ago, the Labour Party in Scotland was clear about the threat that the IMA poses, when it backed a motion calling for its repeal. I hope that we will hear from Neil Bibby later in the debate, but during the debate of 3 October 2023, he said:
“the Conservatives passed the UK Internal Market Act 2020 even though the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd withheld consent. Members will recall that my party—the Labour Party—voted against that legislation here in Scotland and in Wales. We also opposed it at Westminster—that makes it all three Parliaments—because of the implications for devolution and concern about the market access principles.” —[Official Report, 3 October 2023; c 32.]
The Scottish Labour Party’s assessment of the act’s impact on devolution is just as correct today as it was in October 2023. The risk that the act poses to the Parliament and to policy innovation is felt across Scotland. Organisations from NFU Scotland to Alcohol Focus Scotland have made the risks plain. Just last month, Scottish Environment LINK called the act “entirely unfit for purpose” and said that it
“works directly against the principles of devolution”.
It warned of
“years of inertia, delay and uncertainty”
if the act’s impact on devolution is not addressed.
Against that background, last month, the UK Government announced a statutory review of the act. Despite the profound damage that it does to the powers of the Parliament, there was no substantive engagement with the devolved Governments or devolved legislatures on the scope and terms of reference of the review. The preferred option of both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which is for repeal and replacement with a fairer, more transparent, and actually workable system of regulatory co-operation, has been unilaterally ruled out. As matters stand, we still face the prospect of laws that are passed in the Parliament being nullified at the stroke of a pen in Whitehall by whatever Administration is in power.
Kate Forbes is speaking about bills that were nullified by the UK Parliament. One of those was the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. John Swinney, who is sitting next to her in the chamber today, said that he had no regrets about supporting the bill. I know that the Deputy First Minister did not vote on it, but does she support the bill, as her First Minister does?
I stand with NFU Scotland, Alcohol Focus Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK, and the Scottish Crofting Federation, which have all stated that the fundamental principle at the heart of the IMA, irrespective of what issues are at stake, is that it has undermined the powers of devolution. We are accountable to the people of Scotland. There will be disagreement from members across the chamber on the matters that are under debate. The point is that members who are elected to the Parliament are accountable for the decisions that we make. That should stand without a minister from another Government unilaterally overthrowing laws that are passed by the Parliament.
Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?
I think that I have answered Douglas Ross’s point.
As matters stand, we still face the prospect of laws that were passed in this Parliament—irrespective of what members across this Parliament think—being nullified at the stroke of a pen, and the prospect of those powers being diminished without the Parliament’s consent.
The consultation document recognises some of the damage that was done by the previous UK Government, and it proposes, rightly, that common frameworks—intergovernmental mechanisms for regulatory co-operation that are underpinned by agreed principles, including respect for devolution—represent the correct approach. However, the development of common frameworks has been greatly impeded by the introduction of the IMA. That further strengthens the case for its repeal.
As matters stand, the act’s market access principles apply automatically in nearly every case, impeding sensible discussions on managing divergence and acting as a disincentive to seeking and agreeing proportionate, sustainable solutions. We stand ready to work with the UK Government and other devolved Governments to deliver a better system that will remove the unnecessary, unworkable and undemocratic constraints that the act has placed on the Scottish Parliament. We believe that a better outcome is easily achieved. It is entirely possible to devise a system of regulatory co-operation that provides certainty to businesses, consumers and citizens while respecting devolution.
In that respect, the IMA has demonstrably failed to deliver any of the ambitions that were set out by the UK and devolved Governments in the agreed 2017 statement of principles. In particular, it does not
“respect ... devolution ... and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures”.
If the UK Government is serious about making common frameworks the means by which we manage regulatory co-operation, it has to start by setting out how its proposals will meet the agreed principles that underpin those frameworks. More fundamentally, if it is serious about respecting the decisions of this Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, it should repeal the internal market act. It is baffling that not only has the UK Labour Government refused to repeal the act, it has ruled out even considering repeal or even repealing any part of it as part of the review process.
Devising a better system requires trust, mutual respect and a willingness to listen. The UK Government will find a ready partner in the Scottish Government if it is prepared to approach the issue on those terms and to ensure that the powers of this Parliament are restored in full.
I acknowledge that a Labour Government legislated to establish this Parliament, following an overwhelming vote by the people in September 1997. I do not believe that all those who voted for our new national, democratic and permanent Parliament wanted it to be at the mercy of arbitrary and unaccountable decisions that are made at Westminster. The new Labour Government therefore has a decision to make. It can show that it is committed to the democratic principles that underpin the Scottish Parliament—the principles that Neil Bibby lauded in his comments in October 2023—or it can demonstrate that it is happy to squander that inheritance and endorse the disastrous legacy of the previous Conservative Government. I hope that this Parliament will send a strong, unified message in the name of Scottish democracy.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication of the UK Government’s consultation and review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which sets out that it will “not consider whether to repeal the UK Internal Market Act or any part of it”; recalls that both the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd refused to give the Act legislative consent; notes the position of the Welsh Government, which opposes the Act, believing it to be “an unwarranted attack on devolution”; reaffirms its decision regarding the Act on 3 October 2023, and calls for it to be repealed.
15:38
Here we go again, debating the so-called protection of the Scottish Parliament’s powers. This is the second time this session that the Scottish National Party has brought forward a grievance-led debate on the subject, rather than focusing on the pressing issues that matter to the people of Scotland.
The last time that we had this debate, nothing changed, and nothing will change after today’s debate except that, once again, valuable parliamentary time will have been wasted when we could have been addressing—
Kate Forbes rose—
If Kate Forbes can tell me why we are not discussing health, education and all the issues of crime on which the Government is failing Scotland’s population, I will take her intervention.
I hope that Rachael Hamilton understands that the act has an impact on all the issues that she has just identified. However, my question is more fundamental. I understand that Rachael Hamilton and I might disagree on this issue, but does she at least think that Labour should stand by its words and its commitment of a year ago to repeal the act?
Labour is in a complete pickle. It does not stand for change and it does not stand for hope.
Scotland has one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The problem is not a lack of powers but the Scottish Government’s failure to use those powers effectively. As I said, the Scottish Government already has control of health, education, transport, justice and the economy, yet in every one of those areas outcomes are getting worse and worse on its watch. The Government needs to look no further than itself when it comes to the erosion of Scottish parliamentary powers. Time after time, it has absconded from its duty and refused to allow proper scrutiny in the chamber. In some circumstances, it is a case of policy by press release, without any opportunity for any of us to scrutinise its announcements.
Increasingly, the Scottish Government uses framework bills, as well as Henry VIII powers, which has allowed it to circumvent the robust and proper scrutiny that should be fundamental to Parliament’s role. Instead of presenting developed policies, it introduces skeleton framework bills, leaving the crucial detail to be attached later through secondary legislation. That means far less scrutiny and transparency. That was evident during the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in June. Farmers are still to receive any further detail on the support within that framework. That is not the behaviour of a Government that values democracy.
The Scottish Government’s contempt for parliamentary scrutiny has never been more apparent than it was yesterday, when it whipped SNP members to refuse Parliament the opportunity to rightly scrutinise the provision of single-sex spaces. It is not protecting devolution; it is dismantling accountability.
One example of where parliamentary scrutiny must be upheld relates to the internal market act. I completely disagree with Kate Forbes—the legislation is crucial to protecting Scottish businesses and jobs. She quotes NFU Scotland, but it is 100 per cent behind protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom. Sixty per cent of our trade is with the rest of the UK, which is more than our trade with Europe.
It is very kind of the member to accept my second intervention. Before the IMA was passed, the Scottish Crofting Federation said that it feared that
“the proposed legislation would lead to a race to the bottom, threatening our high standards in food, environment and animal welfare, thus damaging the image of Scottish produce.”
Its words were proven true, were they not?
It is this Government that is undermining democracy. It is this Government that is trying to put up a barrier to trade with the rest of the UK. It is important that farmers, traders and businesses have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom, which they can have through the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. Kate Forbes knows that absolutely.
The IMA is absolutely crucial to protecting Scottish jobs, to our economy and to ensuring that trade flows freely. However, rather than recognise those economic benefits, as we have just heard, the SNP claims that the act is undermining devolution. The internal market act does not take away powers from the Scottish Parliament; it ensures that we can operate freely without unnecessary trade barriers. The real threat to Scotland’s economy is not the IMA but the SNP’s relentless pursuit of separation, which would devastate our economy, cut off vital markets and create even more uncertainty for businesses and workers.
The SNP claims that the UK Government’s use of a section 35 order for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was an attack on devolution. That is entirely misleading. Kate Forbes has not answered my colleague Douglas Ross’s question as to whether she would have supported the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill or the section 35 order, which was essential to protect women’s spaces and maintain their protections. This Government ignored those concerns about women’s protections. It rushed the bill through Parliament and it left the UK Government with no choice but to act to protect legal consistency across the United Kingdom and to protect the rights and protections of women. That was not about devolution; it was about responsible governance and ensuring that laws passed in Scotland do not have unintended consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. Even Labour, which voted for the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, has since admitted that the UK Government was right to step in.
We know that the SNP is obsessed with divergence from the rest of the UK, even when it is not in Scotland’s interests. It refused to embrace gene editing, which could revolutionise Scottish farming and boost our agriculture sector, choosing instead to be different for the sake of it, at the expense of Scotland’s farmers and food producers. It also chose political posturing when the UK took decisive action to ban XL bullies, simply to be contrarians, only to, embarrassingly, U-turn later—[Interruption.]—yes, embarrassingly U-turn later, Ms Robison.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in her final minute.
The handling of this issue perfectly sums up the SNP’s approach to government. The Parliament has been given extensive powers but, instead of using them effectively, the Government has squandered them, opportunity after opportunity. Right now, we see the state of the health service and we also see the state of education in Scotland, which was once world leading. Education has suffered under the SNP’s governance, and the programme for international student assessment results show that literacy and numeracy standards are tumbling in the global rankings.
Scotland deserves better than this. It is time to move on, focus on the real priorities and deliver for the people of Scotland.
Please move your amendment, Ms Hamilton.
I move amendment S6M-16511.2, to leave out from “, which sets” to end and insert:
“; recognises the fundamental importance of the UK internal market to Scotland’s businesses, investment and jobs, given that trade with the rest of the UK accounts for over 60% of Scotland’s total exports, worth over £52 billion annually; believes that the integrity of the UK internal market is essential to economic stability, consumer confidence and business certainty across Scotland; notes that the Scottish Government has consistently failed to make effective use of the extensive powers already devolved to the Scottish Parliament by presiding over declining public service performance and failing to roll out devolved benefits on time; further notes that, rather than constructively engaging with the opportunities afforded by devolution, the Scottish National Party administration has prioritised constitutional grievance over delivering for the people of Scotland, and condemns the Scottish Government for its attacks on the powers of the Scottish Parliament through its leaking of crucial policies to the press before being announced to the Parliament, passing legislation that bypasses proper parliamentary scrutiny and failing to answer questions from parliamentarians about important topics that are in the public interest.”
I call Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment S6M-16511.1. You have up to six minutes.
15:45
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Given that this is the second debate in two consecutive days brought forward by the Scottish Government on UK Government policy, I would be more grateful to speak in a debate on using the Scottish Parliament’s powers.
For far too long, the people of Scotland were badly let down by the previous Tory Government, not just with its disrespect for devolution but with the performative constitutional fights between itself and the SNP Government. Those constitutional fights may have been politically convenient for the parties involved, but they did nothing to improve the lives of the people we represent.
The election in July of a new UK Labour Government that is committed to resetting the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Governments was and is a significant moment that provides us with an important opportunity to end the performative politics and to usher in a period of co-operation rather than conflict between Scotland’s Governments.
I will try to concentrate on areas where we can agree, but I have to say that much of the rhetoric from the Deputy First Minister today appears to be very performative, particularly when we consider the claims about NHS privatisation and the number of my constituents who are having to pay for private treatment on the NHS right now under the SNP Government.
It is interesting that Neil Bibby has taken that line in his speech. To be fair to the Deputy First Minister, she was quoting Neil Bibby. When we last debated the UKIMA, I reminded him that the Labour Government would not want to repeal it. That has happened, has it not? Labour is not prepared to repeal it, because it knows that it was the right thing for the United Kingdom as a whole and for Scotland in particular—
We have got the gist, Mr Kerr.
I will come on to that point shortly.
In terms of resetting the relationship, it takes two to tango. If the Scottish Government is genuinely committed to partnership working and co-operation, it would join us in focusing on and welcoming many of the positive steps that are being taken by the new UK Government. [Interruption.] I will not take the intervention, as I want to make some progress.
Scottish Labour welcomes the publication of the UK Government’s consultation and review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We welcome the fact that the review is both broader in scope and being carried out earlier than is required by statute. We also welcome the UK Labour Government’s immediate commitment to finalise the delivery of the joint common frameworks programme ahead of that review—something that Scottish Labour has called for, including the last time that we debated the issue. Scottish Labour also welcomes the new approach to resetting relations, and the UK Labour Government’s intention is rightly to uphold its responsibilities in relation to the Windsor framework as we reset our relationship with the European Union. All those points should be welcomed by the Scottish Government and by all parties. Indeed, many of those measures have been called for by parties across the chamber and not just by Scottish Labour.
The other reason why the debate feels performative is that the Scottish Government is prejudging an important review that still has more than six weeks of its consultation to go. We should all agree—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Yes.
Does the member not think that explicitly excluding one of the options—the very option that majorities in both the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have supported—up front is prejudging the outcome of the review?
I will come on to why the internal market act is being reviewed and why it is being retained. The Deputy First Minister is prejudging the responses to the review from people in Scotland. She is also the economy secretary, and we should all agree that economic growth is of utter importance. I hope that we would also all agree that it is paramount that the views of Scottish businesses are heard.
We know that, generally, businesses want to be able to confidently trade freely across the UK, that exports to the rest of the UK are worth nearly £50 billion and account for more than 60 per cent of all Scotland’s exports, and that businesses want regulatory alignment across the UK. We also know from the latest Scottish business monitor that 90 per cent of businesses raised political uncertainty as one of their major concerns.
The Deputy First Minister might like to think that she is the voice of business in the Government, but, if this debate is not performative, that rather begs the question why the Scottish Government is adopting its position before all Scottish businesses have had their say in the review. It is vital that businesses, consumers and other stakeholders here, in Scotland, and across the UK are listened to.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I want to make progress.
The Government’s motion not only prejudges the consultation; perhaps ironically, it prejudges the work of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee and the evidence that it will take on the review. If the Scottish Government’s show today is not performative and it really wants to respect the role of the Scottish Parliament, surely the Deputy First Minister should be awaiting with interest the findings of a Scottish Parliament committee.
It is regrettable that the Deputy First Minister has criticised the new UK Government’s review and, indeed, Scottish Labour’s position, and that she has largely ignored the very welcome commitments that it has given and the change of circumstances. Rachael Hamilton said that nothing changed after the last debate. In fact, a lot has changed since then. The truth is that there have been a number of substantial and important steps forward since we previously debated the issue, in October 2023. [Interruption.] First and most important—I say this to Stephen Kerr—we no longer have a Conservative Government. Instead, we have a new UK Labour Government that is committed to respecting devolution and resetting the relationship with the devolved Governments.
I remind members that the motion referred to by the Deputy First Minister called on the UK Government
“to develop a more consensual means of preserving common standards and safeguards across the UK that does not undermine devolution”.
Mr Bibby, I appreciate that you were generous in taking interventions, but you will need to bring your remarks to a close now.
That is exactly what the new UK Labour Government is aiming to do. It is already committed to finalising the common frameworks programme and to undertaking—
Mr Bibby, you will need to conclude—you are well over your time.
Okay. I had a lot more to say, Presiding Officer, but thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I move amendment S6M-16511.1, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:
“welcomes the publication of the UK Government’s consultation and review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which is broader in scope and being carried out earlier than required by law; notes the change of UK administration in July 2024 and welcomes its commitment to resetting the relationship between the UK Government and devolved governments and its intention to uphold its responsibilities under the Windsor Framework; welcomes the immediate commitment from the UK Government to delivering the joint common framework programme ahead of the review; believes that changes to the Act, co-operation between governments, respect for devolution and ensuring that there are no barriers to trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK are all essential; further believes that the interests of supporting Scotland’s businesses and economic growth should be paramount; welcomes that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee is due to take evidence on the review, and awaits its findings, and encourages Scotland’s businesses, and other stakeholders, to take part in the review by 3 April 2025.”
15:52
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is a pernicious piece of legislation that not only alters the devolution settlement without the consent of Scotland; it is limiting in a way that the European common market is not. Within the common market of the European Union, protections for the environment are viewed as a floor, not a ceiling. Therefore, where nations or regions wish to be more ambitious with measures to protect the environment, they may do so.
However, within the UK single market, the internal market is used to create a ceiling. Any time that Scotland or Wales wishes to use their fully devolved powers to move more quickly than England does—for example, to ban single-use plastics—the UK Government gets the final say as to whether it allows that. The UK Government is not required to give any advance notice of what its decision might be, to provide any evidence to support its decision or to appear in front of Scottish parliamentary committees to defend or be held accountable for its decision.
It is really quite extraordinary that legislation on fully devolved matters, which has been developed over months and years in Scotland and has been passed by the democratic vote of the Scottish Parliament, can be stopped in that way—I will repeat myself, because this is a really important point—without providing evidence or justification or being held democratically accountable.
We have an egregious example of that in Scotland’s deposit return scheme. That example is important, because it demonstrates exactly how the 2020 act limits wider ambition to protect the environment and how it can be used for political ends to undermine the devolved powers of the Scottish Government and the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament.
Back in 2019, all the nations in the UK had the intention to bring in such schemes. Boris Johnson stood for election that year on a manifesto promise to deliver a deposit return scheme that included glass. Scotland went first, with the Scottish Parliament passing the regulations for Scotland’s scheme in 2020, which was before I was elected and before the internal market act was passed. It was recognised that, post Brexit, a mechanism would be needed to figure out how repatriated EU powers would be used by the UK where they clearly infringed on devolved powers.
The mechanism that was developed is called the common frameworks. Those were agreed by all nations, with the intention to bring the nations into alignment and to grant exemptions from the IMA where that was not possible. In the case of the deposit return scheme, although the process was followed to the letter, it failed, because the common frameworks process is not binding on the UK Government. Despite saying for years, including in published documents as late as January 2023, that Scotland’s DRS could contain glass and diverge from England’s, the UK Government delayed and delayed in granting the necessary exemption, and ultimately refused to grant it at the 11th hour.
Will Lorna Slater take an intervention?
I will take one during my closing speech. I have only four minutes.
Ms Slater indeed has only four minutes.
I know that there was significant concern among members of the Scottish Parliament about the uncertainty for Scottish businesses that was caused by that delay, and that there was devastation for the people who lost their jobs as a result of that ultimate refusal. There is a slew of correspondence between the convener of the Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the UK Government, repeatedly asking UK ministers to appear before the committee to explain themselves. The UK Government refused on every occasion.
That the internal market act can be used on a whim by the UK Government to harm Scottish businesses and undermine the will of the Scottish Parliament without democratic accountability shows that it is a flawed piece of legislation. Any UK Government that respected devolution would immediately repeal the act.
15:56
I have to commend Lorna Slater for raising the deposit return scheme in the Scottish Parliament and claiming it as an asset.
We are nine years on from the referendum, yet we are still debating the consequences of Brexit. I have hardly seen any great benefits from Brexit so far. I have not seen great trade agreements with other nations of the world that are bringing huge volumes of trade into the United Kingdom, but we are still dealing with the consequences of Brexit.
There is no doubt that, following Brexit, we needed to have a new market arrangement. Replacing the single market with the internal market act probably was required. The issue was not whether we had something; it was how we did it. There is also no doubt that the previous Conservative Government was far too heavy handed in its use of the internal market act.
Will Willie Rennie give way?
Not just now.
The real deep flaws in the internal market act—there are deep flaws—relate to the mutual recognition arrangements. There is a requirement that businesses should be able to sell goods in any part of the United Kingdom and not have to comply with the laws of any particular part of the United Kingdom if the requirements are different. I would not encourage that approach, because it dismisses local requirements and standards. It dismisses innovation in different parts of the United Kingdom, and I want to encourage such innovation. However, I would not want a situation in which companies choose not to trade with certain parts of the United Kingdom because the standards are so different. There is a balance to strike in all this.
I am sceptical about some of the arguments that the Deputy First Minister used, particularly on the privatisation of the NHS. That undermines the argument that many of us would agree with, which is about ensuring that we have the right balance between local innovation, local difference and local regulation, and the need to have the ability to trade across the United Kingdom in a way that does not unnecessarily hinder business.
The UK Government’s consultation is an opportunity. I would prefer to repeal the internal market act but, whether we repeal it or change it substantially, I do not really mind about the process. However, what must change is the way in which it works and, in particular, the crude application of mutual recognition.
UK in a Changing Europe has been quite sensible in coming forward with pragmatic solutions to that issue and has set out two important principles in particular: subsidiarity and proportionality. Those elements allow there to be a degree of common decision making across the United Kingdom, which is what the frameworks are supposed to be about. However, it should be enshrined in law that different parts of the United Kingdom are required to agree with one another. In other words: it should not just be the Westminster Government that has the final say on all occasions.
There needs to be a way for the different Parliaments and Assemblies of the United Kingdom, together with the Westminster Parliament, to reach decisions. The current arrangement is therefore not acceptable. Proportionality is important; we want there to be difference, without it being so great that it deters trade across the United Kingdom.
Federalism is the answer to that problem. I have been banging on about that for a long time. If we adopt that more pragmatic and sensible solution, we might be able to get through the problem of the current arrangement.
16:00
I have been a member of the Parliament for a wee while. Things have changed, and I have changed a bit. My hair is a wee bit lighter than it was when I first came in. Christine Grahame has just said that at least I still have a full head of hair. My suits might also be a wee bit larger than they were when I first walked in.
However, one thing that has not changed in my years as an MSP is the unionist parties’ attitude to the Scottish Parliament. Whether Labour or Tory, they make promises during an election and, the minute it is over, they revert to protecting the British state at all costs and not looking at any other ideas whatsoever.
During the time that I have been here, I have seen debates change in the Parliament, Scotland and the rest of the world. There are those who want to disrupt the whole political system and those who run in fear of those who want to disrupt, which concerns and worries me. Much of today’s debate is about those who are running in fear of those who want to disrupt the political system. Brexit was an example of wanting to disrupt the political system.
One thing will remain the same: I will represent the people of Paisley and speak up for them, as I always have. They want to hear about how the Parliament can be a part of the solution to all the problems and issues that they face in life. It will always be an honour for me to stand in this chamber and speak up for the people of Paisley and Scotland, but I do so today with deep concern, because the very powers of the Parliament—which, as the Deputy First Minister said, the people of Scotland voted for in 1997—are under attack.
The internal market act is the biggest threat to devolution since the Parliament was reconvened. It is nothing short of a Westminster power grab and an attempt to roll back the hard gains of devolution. Many members remember those hard gains and what the fight was like to get this Parliament. The act is undemocratic, and it is undermining the democracy of the Scottish people.
Let us be absolutely clear: the act was imposed on Scotland against our will. The Scottish Parliament and the Senedd in Wales refused consent for it, yet Westminster forced it through anyway. That is not co-operation or respect; it is Westminster deciding that Scotland’s voice does not matter. During Brexit, the Tories told us that they wanted to take back control, but now we see exactly what they meant, because it was not about giving power to people but about taking power away from the people of Scotland.
The internal market act allows UK ministers, without our consent, to override decisions that have been made by this Parliament in devolved areas, which means that they can force policies on us whether we want them or not. They could undermine our food standards, environmental protections or even the way in which we support our businesses. In areas such as public health, in which Scotland has led the way with minimum alcohol unit pricing and free prescriptions, the act creates uncertainty as to whether we can continue to make such progressive choices.
It is not just the Tories to blame. In opposition, Labour said that it would scrap the act, but now it refuses to do so. We in the SNP have fought tooth and nail against the act from day 1. We warned that it was a power grab and would damage devolution, and we were right. The Parliament is here because the people of Scotland demanded it, but, if Westminster can simply override our decisions as it likes, what kind of devolution is that?
Let me be absolutely clear: the only way to fully protect the Parliament and ensure that Scotland’s future is in Scotland’s hands is through independence. If Westminster will not respect our Parliament, the people of Scotland deserve the chance to choose a different future—a future in which decisions about Scotland are made in Scotland by the people of Scotland.
16:05
It is, I suppose, always a pleasure to follow George Adam. He said that the UK Government seeks to protect the British state, and I might observe that that is, in fact, what the people of Scotland voted for in 2014.
This debate is something of a pretty kettle of fish. When Kate Forbes stood to speak, I was reflecting that, when I first came to the Parliament, Ms Forbes was 17, had just left school and was off to the University of Cambridge. Of course, she has been the repository of a great deal of hope among many that she will bring a more enlightened view to the Parliament.
Angus Robertson and I were both fiery redheads in those days. He now has a slightly depressing grey look, but I have maintained a slightly strawberry blonde colour. Notwithstanding that, at that time, he was at Westminster, aggressively campaigning for a referendum on Europe, as I recall.
However, neither Kate Forbes nor Angus Robertson was here in what was, I think, the SNP’s best parliamentary session—the one from 2007 to 2011. I will characterise why I think that, why things went wrong after that and why I think the focus of this debate is so wrong.
In those days, the business manager, Bruce Crawford, and the late Brian Adam—for whom many of us had a great deal of affection and respect—worked the corridors of this Parliament and engaged with all the other parties, because the Government was a minority Government. That Government recognised that the chamber is shaped like a horseshoe—there is not a divide as there is in Westminster—and it understood that, in order to deliver policy, it required to achieve agreement across the parties. The 2007 to 2011 parliamentary session was all the more effective for that.
Alex Salmond, the First Minister, Jim Mather, the business secretary, and John Swinney, the finance secretary, all engaged with other parties to achieve policies, some of which are still the longest-lasting and best-remembered policy achievements. When SNP members list their achievements, they are often the achievements of that first Administration.
Jackson Carlaw makes some important points, but does he agree that, in these circumstances, what is important is not just the actions of the Government? Does he recognise how different the Opposition is in the Parliament now compared with that during the period that he has cited?
That is a fair point, and let me address it. What has changed? I think that, since then, in effect, the electoral system—which is what sends us all here—has not produced the same proportionality in the Parliament that encouraged engagement and agreement between the parties in order to achieve policy. The system has produced a Parliament that has allowed one party to be much more dogmatic and definitive in the way in which it has progressed legislation, without having a record of achievement.
Unarguably, all our public services are now in a position of which none of us can be proud, because they are less effective and less successful than they were back at that time. When the Parliament passed my colleague Margaret Mitchell’s no-fault public apologies bill, I do not think that we thought that it would be the Scottish Government that took the greatest advantage of it. How many times do ministers stand up and apologise but then say, “It’s nae my fault”?
Next, we have the “Let’s thank our public services but actually do nothing to improve them” bill. Our public services are fed up with being thanked without there being policy changes to improve those services. That is our central failure.
Will Jackson Carlaw give way?
I will in a second.
I looked at waiting times this week. In 2011, when there was a majority Government, a total of 784 people waited more than 12 hours in emergency departments. By last year, that number had risen to 76,346. Who in the Parliament can be proud of our collective achievement if that is the end result? What is the Deputy First Minister’s response? She has fallen into the habit of every one of her predecessors of saying that the real threat is that the Tories or those at Westminster are set to privatise the NHS in Scotland. For goodness’ sake—is that really the level of our debate? How much more effective would things be if the parties in this Parliament operated more effectively, as we did during the first SNP-led Administration, and sought to find a workable and collective solution to the problems in Scotland’s NHS, rather than using childish and simplistic slogans?
If it is any consolation, I was referring to Nigel Farage rather than the Conservatives, just to make that crystal clear.
The member talks, quite rightly, about the importance of accountability—in other words, all of us being accountable to the electorate on the basis of the decisions that we make. The point that I was making—it is a principled point—was that, if those decisions are then unilaterally overruled, there is not accountability. Does the member not think that the UKIMA undermines the very accountability that he proclaims?
The Deputy First Minister’s point might be more effective if the Government paid attention to divisions in this Parliament when it loses a vote. Instead, it carries on regardless and completely ignores the fact that it does not have the support of Parliament for the actions that it is taking.
I am coming to the end of my speech, and I want to be constructive, in as much as I can be. In response to Kate Forbes’s question to the Labour Party, Neil Bibby replied that it takes two to tango. Well, I think that Labour is well and truly Tangoed, frankly, in respect of the position that it took. Why did it make the commitment that it did? It is because fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
How do we hope to proceed in the next session of Parliament? Given that this session has had the Calman and Smith commissions, which, as far as I am concerned, resulted in an extension of powers—the Parliament simply did not have those powers in 2007—I say to the Presiding Officer and party leaders that in the next session, Parliament needs to think very carefully. The more mature we have become in age, the less mature we have become in performance in this Parliament. It is a watershed: the galleries are empty at First Minister’s questions and the ratings for Scottish Parliament television have absolutely collapsed. The public are falling out of love with this institution because it is not delivering. In the next session of Parliament, we will have to work collectively to pull together in a way that actually delivers for Scotland, and not just have rhetorical, empty debate.
16:11
The Tories opposed the very existence of this Parliament and have sought to undermine it at every possible opportunity over the past decade and more.
The assertion that Scotland is the most powerful devolved nation in the world is the epitome of unionist rhetoric that is often peddled by Tory MSPs—a claim that is wheeled out when legitimate concerns are raised regarding the erosion of Scotland’s devolved powers. It is a ludicrous assertion in a Parliament that has no authority over broadcasting, currency, defence, energy, foreign policy, telecommunications, postal services, currency, immigration, income tax thresholds, VAT, national insurance, corporation tax, inheritance tax, fuel, pensions, tobacco and alcohol duties and so on, and which cannot borrow prudentially, as local authorities can—we cannot even ban the sale of fireworks in this Parliament.
Successive UK Governments have denied Scotland greater self-governance, refusing even to say what, in their eyes, constitutes a mandate for an independence referendum, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 undermines the existing devolution settlement. The excuse of establishing a smooth internal UK market seems odd, given the willingness of Brexiteers to leave the much bigger European single market. UKIMA delivered an unprecedented and audacious overreach, affording UK ministers control over devolved spending in culture, sport, education, economic development and infrastructure. The Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly called the act a
“red flag symptom of constitutional ill-health”
and
“The most contentious and glaring manifestation of Westminster’s growing propensity to impose its will upon the devolved nations without democratic consent.”
An overwhelming majority of MSPs and our Welsh counterparts decisively rejected granting legislative consent. Nevertheless, the Sewel convention was disregarded and the act was unilaterally imposed. Westminster Tories wasted no time in steamrollering Scottish ministers and flexing their self-appointed new powers, introducing the shared prosperity fund to bypass Holyrood, with meagre resources that were intended to limit this Parliament’s influence over economic development and infrastructure.
Efforts to curb single-use plastics met repeated obstacles, with the act allowing Westminster to override devolved policies under the pretence of market consistency. Previously, Scotland could maintain higher standards on pesticides use, agricultural practices and public health, but we can now be forced to accept inferior goods and services. The University of Glasgow centre for public policy said:
“UKIMA-driven coordination risks stifling policy innovation at the devolved level, may slow the pace of policy development, and could generate pressure to conform to the standards that the UK Government deems appropriate for England.”
Even the ban on glue traps was stonewalled, with the UK Government refusing Scotland an exemption. All that in the most devolved nation in the world—a preposterous claim.
For many UK politicians, the union is mistakenly conceived as a unitary state rather than as a voluntary political union of nations, with devolution long perceived as requiring neutering. Despite our supposed nation status, compared to provinces, autonomous communities or constituent territories, our devolved powers are weak.
The Basque Country controls all tax revenues, sending only 6.29 per cent to Madrid for shared responsibilities such as defence and foreign affairs. Quebec’s immigration powers shape its demographic and economic trajectory according to its own priorities. A Scottish equivalent could target labour shortages and attract skilled professionals into vital sectors such as healthcare, aerospace and renewables. As Crown dependencies, the Channel Islands set their own tax rates, including corporation tax and VAT. They set import duties, and they hold responsibility for customs and immigration, deciding—unlike Scotland—who can live and work in their communities. They negotiate international agreements with other countries. The Isle of Man has similar powers. Meanwhile, we face the capricious indifference of London post Brexit.
Devolution has led to market interventions in health, environment and welfare, yet our powers are simply not robust enough to defend policies against legal challenges or UK pressures undermining their effectiveness. UKIMA strikes at the heart of devolution, as it is designed to do. UK authority over decisions that should be made here diminishes this Parliament. That deliberate erosion of devolved powers is one that Labour’s branch office—as always, awaiting its orders from London—seems in no hurry to reverse. Sadly, the pitiful lack of ambition of those who back devolution but not independence does not even extend to Scotland having the same powers as Guernsey. It is time that they raised their game.
16:16
I have always believed that the best way to protect devolution in Scotland is to demonstrate what it can deliver for the people of Scotland. Doing so would mean that no one would dare threaten devolution.
I find the level of debate today quite depressing. Kenneth Gibson talks about the cannot-do approach, saying, “We do not have powers. We cannot do this. We cannot do that.” What about what we can do? I agree with the points that Rachael Hamilton made. Today, as with almost every day, I am dealing with housing issues, and yet the Parliament, which is celebrating 25 years, has not only failed to tackle some of the big housing issues but has now declared a housing crisis. What about education, where we can do so much more? We have a crisis in the classroom, in our NHS and in social care. People looking on expect that housing, education and health issues would be best tackled at a Scottish level. I certainly believed that when I campaigned for a Scottish Parliament all those years ago.
We do not seem to want to use the powers that we have, and we do not seem to want to take responsibility for the powers that we have; we just come here year after year, moaning. I was thinking to myself the other day that I have been in this Parliament for 11 years and I have not seen progress on all the big, day-to-day, bread-and-butter issues that the people of Scotland expected this Parliament to take on.
The member seems to be complaining about the terms of today’s debate, but the debate is calling for the repeal of the internal market act. I spoke in the same debate as Mr Rowley did on 3 October 2023, when he and I voted for the repeal of that act. Does Alex Rowley agree with himself from that time, when he voted for the repeal of the act?
I very much welcome the fact that the United Kingdom Government has brought forward the consultation and discussion. I equally welcome the fact that the difference between the Conservatives being in power and Labour being in power is that we now have a Government that is saying that, rather than the devolved Administrations simply coming up with grudges and bemoaning the UK Government, it wants to work with them. That is the massive difference, and that is what we were asking for: common frameworks and Governments to work together.
Let me get back to the point: this is about the Scottish Parliament continually failing to deliver on the areas that it has responsibility for, while coming up with excuse after excuse.
It is no wonder that the SNP does not want to talk today about the national health service, education or the crisis in housing, which is heartbreaking to deal with every day. Those are the issues that the people of Scotland vote for the Parliament to act on and to deliver on. However, the SNP Government knows that, if we were to discuss those issues today, people would be shown the extent of its failures; hence, it comes along and talks about the powers that it does not have. I believe that the Scottish people are very clear that they want every MSP to earn their crust, to start working and to use the powers that we do have to improve the lives of people in Scotland. That is their challenge to us.
16:20
From recycling schemes to dog breeding and restrictions on products that are high in sugar, the internal market act is a sword of Damocles that hangs over anyone who is trying to govern Scotland or any of the other devolved nations in the UK. Those issues and the others that have been raised in the debate are ones that the Parliament can deal with, as they are devolved. It is all very well to shout that we should use the powers that we have, but that is what the debate is about—let us use those powers. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd’s refusal to consent to that legislation should have been the end of it. In any normal, democratic set-up, it would have been.
I campaigned for independence in 2014 and I know full well that, had I said back then not only that the Tories would undo devolution but also that, when Labour got in after them, it would keep it that way, folk would have said that I was scaremongering and that it was our own project fear. They said, “Lead, don’t leave” and not, “If you try to lead the way, we’re going to stop you”. They promised us more powers and not a complete flip of what devolution means. The reality in which we are all living only a decade later is that the Sewel convention is meaningless and that not only is a hostile UK Government in place, but there is no prospect of a party taking control in London that will respect the decisions that are made in this chamber.
The democratically elected representatives of Scotland should be the people who make decisions about and for Scotland. That is an incredibly simple premise, but it is not being upheld. The act allows UK ministers to override decisions that are made here using the powers that everyone agrees we have. That is blatantly wrong. It was atrocious that the Conservatives brought in that attack on devolution, but it is unforgivable that Labour is keeping it in place despite the party’s opposition to it not too long ago.
The internal market act pretends to be something that it is not. It is disguised as involving teamwork on consideration of shared goals and trade, but it is only about taking control. Scotland is not for sale. If the internal market act is the answer, Scotland was not asking the question.
I want to be clear that there is no excuse for Labour keeping the act. However, I still want to warn its ministers and members that they cannot legislate solely on the basis that they will be in power forever. I ask members to imagine a Labour Scottish Government—that is unlikely, but I ask members to imagine it—and what it would look like alongside a Reform Government at Westminster, which is a far more realistic possibility. Should the Government that Scotland elects, regardless of which party or parties make it up, govern in constant fear of being undermined and overruled by whoever is in power at Westminster? If that is really the position of Labour members or anyone else, I have no idea what they are doing in this place.
Earlier, when Rachael Hamilton talked down the Scottish Government wanting to take a different approach to that of the UK on things such as controlling XL bullies—given that nobody thinks that the UK’s position on that is sustainable or sensible in the long term—I wanted to ask her, “What on earth is it okay for us to do differently?” We should do things differently here because we are a different country. We can take decisions to work with our closest neighbours or nations across the world when we agree on shared goals around tackling climate change and furthering human rights, but those agreements, treaties or unions should be voluntary.
The use of the internal market act powers by Whitehall towards us is not voluntary. The act was not brought in voluntarily and the union is no longer voluntary. It is unacceptable that any UK Government would override the wishes of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament and I hope that people will stop accepting it, because there is a very clear alternative—you know where I am going with this, Presiding Officer—and that is independence.
16:24
The Labour UK Government was elected on a manifesto to reset the relationship with the devolved Administrations. After years of antagonism under the Conservatives, we need to move on to relationships that are based on collaboration and respect in order to deliver for the public and business. The announcement of the consultation and early review of the internal market act is evidence that the Labour Government is proactively rebuilding the relationships and working with, rather than against, the devolved Governments.
The ministerial foreword to the review by Douglas Alexander, the MP for Lothian East, says that the UK Government wants to work in a “collaborative and transparent way”. Equally, Labour reversed a decision by the old Tory Government to block the banning of glue traps by the Scottish Government. Members should be welcoming the change from a Conservative Government that frequently ran over devolution, including in its reckless passage of the Internal Market Bill in 2020.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I have a lot to get through and I do not want to argue about what we should or should not be doing. I ask members to let me say what I want to say.
The Labour Government views the devolved Governments as partners and not as rivals.
The review of the internal market act must achieve a reformed agreement that works for Scotland and allows Scottish businesses barrier-free trade with the rest of the UK. Scotland’s exports to the rest of the UK are valued at more than £45 billion.
Will the member take an intervention?
I have said that I do not want to argue. I have points to make.
It is key to economic growth that businesses face no barriers to trade with Wales and England—particularly small businesses, which may not have the resources to deal with greatly differing regulations between nations.
There have been exclusions in the internal market, for example on single-use plastics, and the most recent annual report from the Office for the Internal Market names other products that may be regulated in future, such as cosmetics and fireworks. I therefore welcome the fact that the review seeks to improve the exclusions process. That is particularly important for transparency, given that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s report on the internal market noted the lack of a process for informing Parliament or consulting businesses when an exclusion is sought. Above all, businesses should have certainty about the rules that they will follow, and a transparent process is key to that.
I hoped to hear how the Scottish Government plans to respond to the consultation and provide certainty for Scottish businesses, rather than hearing more constitutional rows. However, I hope that the Scottish Government will engage fully with the review and consultation, and I look forward to reading the findings of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee after it takes evidence in March.
16:28
I shall quote from our debate of 7 October 2020 on legislative consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. In opening for the Scottish Government, Mike Russell said:
“Members will be familiar with the main provisions, but let me go through them. In parts 1 and 2, the bill contains sweeping new blanket mutual recognition and non-discrimination provisions. Regardless of the views of the Parliament or the wishes of the people of Scotland, they would require Scotland to accept lower standards relating to food, as pointed out by Food Standards Scotland; the environment, as pointed out by Scottish Environment LINK; and building materials, as pointed out by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. The scope of those powers can be unilaterally changed by UK ministers, and only by them.”
He also said:
“There are sweeping new spending powers in part 6 that threaten the devolved Scottish budget and transfer decision making over areas of devolved spending from the Scottish Government to the UK Government.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 67, 68.]
Thank goodness minimum unit pricing predated the act—we could not introduce that now without UK Government say-so. We cannot ban the sale of electric shock collars without UK Government permission, and we know that funding for devolved projects that was formally awarded by the EU is now dished out by the UK, taking a detour around devolution.
I turn to what Alex Rowley said—dancing on the head of a pin, and no wonder—when he opened for Labour in the same debate in 2020. It almost makes me feel sorry for him. He said:
“I want to make it clear that we will not give consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Let me be clear: we will not give support to any measures that will reduce and constrain the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
As a political party, Labour is committed to devolution. For the avoidance of doubt, the bill is a full-on attack on the existing devolution settlement.”
He went on to say:
“However, it is not just that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill breaks international law, or that it drives a coach and horses through devolution, but that it paves the way, in my view, for private and multinational companies to force their way into key public services in Scotland.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 75, 76.]
Claudia Beamish, in closing for Labour, said:
“We will not support legislative consent for such a disrespectful and dangerous bill.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 94.]
My question for Labour is this: if the act is “disrespectful and dangerous”, should it not be repealed rather than reviewed? After all, that was Labour’s position less than five years ago. It betrayed the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality; it betrayed the pensioners over the universal fuel allowance; and it betrayed employers through the increased national insurance contributions, which are a jobs tax. Not repealing the internal market act is a further betrayal—this time, of devolution. Surely that is a CV fit for the television programme “The Traitors”.
We move to closing speeches.
16:32
I want to reassure Willie Rennie that I am happy to talk about the deposit return scheme any time, and to discuss it and debate it in the chamber. If any members wish to make interventions during my closing remarks, I would be happy to accept them.
Does Ms Slater recall that, in an unprecedented expression of condemnation of the bill that she was then in charge of as a minister, around 600 businesses across the entire range that would have been affected by the deposit return scheme said that it was unworkable and unachievable and, quite frankly, that it should have been scrapped? Does she believe that the scheme should have gone ahead as planned? Were all those businesses throughout Scotland wrong?
Thank you, Mr Ewing. I think that we have got the gist.
I recall that the regulations covering the scheme were passed by Parliament in 2020. It was the will of Parliament that that scheme be put in place. I note that in the past few weeks the UK Government has passed similar regulations that are based on the ones in Scotland, because UK Government officials worked closely with our officials here to develop them. Those are coming for the entire UK, whether Fergus Ewing supports them or not.
Emma Roddick put it best in the debate. She outlined, as I did, that we are talking about attempts by the Scottish Parliament to use the powers that it has, or should have, under devolution, and that we are demonstrating where they have been and could be blocked. Even the most basic and simple of things, such as starting a recycling scheme for bottles and cans a few months ahead of the rest of the UK, was blocked.
Labour is, indeed, approaching the issue as if it can never imagine itself being in government in Scotland. If it could imagine being in government in Scotland, it would see itself as being yes men and women to Westminster, never using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to lead, make a difference or diverge in any way.
Scottish Labour was desperately hoping that a Labour Government in Westminster would undermine the case for Scottish independence, but it has done the opposite, by demonstrating that it does not matter who is in power in Westminster: the UK Government will retain the power to veto legislation that is made by the Scottish Parliament in fully devolved areas.
Scotland and Wales will continue to have their ambition to protect the environment curtailed, which is forcing us to move forward at the rate of the slowest nation—or, rather, at the rate of England—which is contrary to the whole principle of devolution. There is to be no more innovation and no more moving first for Scotland, and no more trying out policy ideas in Scotland to see whether they work well before the rest of the UK can take them on.
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly.
Briefly.
It was a Conservative Government that transferred taxation powers to this Parliament, which is now able to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom in the tax policies that it implements. Is the member completely oblivious to that?
I am grateful for those tax powers, given that we have used them to put in place progressive taxation, but today we are talking about the UK internal market act, which is a mechanism for taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament.
I remember protesting that state of affairs at an intergovernmental meeting when I was the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, and I was thundered at by a UK secretary of state that a devolved system is not a federal system, meaning that our powers are not protected by the constitution. Well; quite.
The Scottish Greens maintain that Scotland should cease being part of the union and single market and instead be an independent nation inside the European Union and its common market, and everything that the Labour Government is doing reinforces that position.
16:36
This debate has been almost three debates in one, two of which were interesting. I have to say at the outset that Scottish Labour welcomes not only the new UK Labour Government—which no one would be surprised at—but its commitment to resetting the relationship with the devolved Governments, and it has wasted no time in demonstrating that.
It is fascinating that we have statements and questions in which the Scottish Government talks about, and talks up, the close working relationship that exists between the new UK Government and the Scottish Government, but then, following the Scottish Government’s chosen debate yesterday—although I could not possibly criticise it for wanting to level criticism at other Governments—we have today’s debate. This debate, rather than being, as it was heralded, about protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament, might in fact have been an invitation to come back and talk about independence, although I know that the Scottish Government’s front-bench members have been silent on that point—
Will the member give way?
I am happy to take a short intervention.
There is one central point in today’s debate, which is that Labour voted to repeal the IMA in October 2023, but now Labour in government has explicitly ruled that out. Is that a U-turn, or is it not?
Much in the same way as the Scottish Government decided to bring this debate to the chamber before the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee has published its report on its on-going inquiry—
Is it a U-turn?
Well, it is an indication of another debate—a debate in which, aside from one reference, members have not discussed the importance of the Windsor framework and the requirement to act in good faith in protecting the UK internal market.
Was there a change? Yes, and—in response to Christine Grahame’s assertions, quotes and references—this is an act that needs to be fixed. The vehicle for fixing the act is under way: it is being brought forward.
Will the member give way?
I am more than happy to give way to the Minister for Parliamentary Business.
Mr Whitfield said that
“this is an act that needs to be fixed.”
On 3 October 2023, he voted for repeal of the internal market act. Does he still believe that the act should be repealed?
I believe that the internal market act should be fixed; it absolutely needs to be—[Interruption.]
There we have the lap of derision, from those who are paying attention.
It is right to say that the UK Labour manifesto spoke, as has been raised today, about strengthening the Sewel convention
“by setting out a new memorandum of understanding”,
because the Governments need to work together.
I will, again, quote a Scottish MP—Douglas Alexander MP—who sits at the heart of the UK Government. He has said that
“The Government is committed to working closely with the Devolved Governments to deliver effective outcomes for people across the UK”,
and that
“we recognise that the operation of the UK Internal Market Act can be improved, including more certainty and clarity”.
That is where the other part of the debate sits.
Will the member take an intervention?
I apologise to Christine Grahame. I need to make progress.
I want to deal with the other element of the debate, which is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. When listening to contributions, it is interesting that the phrases “Scottish Government” and “the will of the Scottish Parliament” are interchanged so frequently when assurance is needed that the whole Parliament has agreed to something, rather than its having been the will of the Scottish Government. It is interesting to revisit Jackson Carlaw’s contribution, who has the privilege of being able to look back at the 2007 to 2011 Government. I hope that his speech was in no way heralding any intention to depart the Parliament on his own terms.
The Scottish Government is a minority Government. It has tried to reach out to other parties and on some occasions it has achieved that, but not with the certainty, strength or clarity of previous Scottish Governments. We need to remember that, under the Scotland Act 1988, in essence, the chamber was set up so that there would be a Government of minorities, and that it would take from the strength and wisdom of people across Scotland in order to work together. That is a skill that needs to be practised, attuned and constantly revisited. Jackson Carlaw made a point about having the ability to walk the corridors and talk to people. I feel that that is unduly lacking in Parliament now, for whatever reason. Having taken an intervention from the Minister for Parliamentary Business, it would be interesting to be invited to consider that and to see where, across the Parliament, we can find agreement on the important things, such as the issues that Alex Rowley raised—the NHS, housing and education.
I point the member to the progress that has been made on the budget, and to the fact that the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Greens took advantage of having the kinds of meetings that he is suggesting. Those can happen, but it takes two sides. If only Scottish Labour had been part of that process, its members might not be sitting on their hands at stage 3.
I will give you a bit of time back, Mr Whitfield.
I mean this with the greatest respect, but perhaps therein lies the challenge for those who are in the Government. The challenge is to reach out across the chamber and to work harder to seek consensus. Perhaps then, Scotland will have a Parliament that it can remember and respect.
16:42
Where to begin in summing up the debate? Let us all agree on one thing: our Scottish Parliament was created to serve the people of Scotland. It was meant to be a place of progress, pragmatism and partnership in a strong and united UK, but under the SNP, it has been reduced to a platform—as we have heard in the debate, even from the Deputy First Minister—for grievance, fantasy division and failure. That is the real threat to the Parliament.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take a short intervention.
Does the member accept that the electorate sent each of us here, and the platform, or otherwise—whatever word the member uses to describe it—is a Parliament that is accountable to the people?
The Parliament is accountable to the people, but the people expect parliamentarians to behave in a certain way. [Laughter.] Well, members can laugh. Was a great mirror dropped in front of members that they had such a laugh?
Let us talk about power. Since 1999, and after the 2014 referendum and Brexit, the Parliament has been entrusted with many new and significant powers, which should be used to change lives for the better. What has the SNP done? It has squandered them. Alex Rowley made the point that either the SNP has let the powers gather dust, or worse, it has wielded them with such incompetence—the most expensive minister in the history of devolution delivered a reminiscence on the deposit return scheme—that it has caused more harm than good.
Let us deal in facts. Scottish trade to the rest of the UK is worth more than £52 billion annually, which is 60 per cent of our total exports. That is not a made-up statistic for debate but an economic reality. The internal UK market is the foundation of Scotland’s prosperity, but the SNP attacks it and undermines it, knowing full well that doing so is to Scotland’s detriment—yet it has no problem whatsoever with the European Union’s internal market. There is not a peep, murmur or protest.
When we were in the EU, we were on the receiving end of 12,000 new regulations a year.
Will Stephen Kerr take an intervention?
Yes, I will hear from the most expensive minister in the history of devolution.
Does Stephen Kerr recognise that the conditions of membership of the European Union are substantially different? Things such as environmental regulation are a floor, not a ceiling. We would have more freedom in that union.
Twelve thousand new regulations arrived in this country every year when we were members of the European Union. Where was the outrage then from the SNP about our lack of ability to change or alter those? We just had to accept them. Where were its demands then for scrutiny, legislative consent or sovereignty? They were nowhere. However, when the UK Government brings in sensible and necessary legislation to protect seamless trade in our country, SNP members wail, whinge and throw their hands up in horror. It is nothing short of nonsense. It is incoherence of the highest order.
The debate is about not principle but point scoring. It is about the SNP’s relentless, tiresome, never-ending campaign of grievance against Westminster. The SNP does not oppose regulatory frameworks; it just opposes anything with “UK” in the title—and let us not forget its ultimate ambition, which is to drag Scotland back into the European Union. It would swap our seat at the table in the United Kingdom for the status of a voiceless and insignificant region in the EU. That is its plan and its vision for Scotland.
Speaking of hypocrisy, let us talk about Labour. Labour mumped and moaned about the UK Internal Market Act. Oh, how it protested and blustered, all for the sake of political point scoring. However, let us get to the truth. In the debates that have been referenced, I told the Parliament that Labour would never repeal the act if it ever got into power. Guess what? It will not do so. Repealing the act is off the agenda. It will not do it. It never intended to do it. Never has an incoming Government shown such a blatant lack of integrity as has this Labour Government. The people have seen through it. It breaks every promise that it makes. It does not have a plan. It does not have a clue.
That is the reality that we face. Audit Scotland has ripped apart the SNP’s record in government. Reports lay bare the SNP’s incompetence. The NHS is in crisis. Infrastructure is delayed and deteriorating. Education is slipping backwards. Let us be clear that the SNP’s failures are not accidental and are not one-offs but patterns of mismanagement, poor governance, deflection and denial.
Let us remind ourselves that the Parliament was meant to be a place of robust debate, scrutiny and solutions. However, under the SNP, the Parliament has been reduced to being a mouthpiece for nationalism. As we have seen this week, debate is stifled. Committees are stuffed with party loyalists. Laws are rushed through with minimal oversight or scrutiny. Framework bills hand unchecked power to ministers. That is not democracy but press-release democracy—an insult to democracy. The real threat to this Parliament is not Westminster but the SNP’s misuse of its powers and its obsession—as we have heard again today—with grievance politics.
I say to Jackson Carlaw that I wish that the people of Scotland watched Scottish Parliament TV. However, no one is watching, because it is predictable and boring. The people of Scotland are sick to the back teeth of the SNP’s rhetoric of division and grievance. The SNP is the threat to devolution.
I will be clear. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is not a threat but a guarantee of economic stability and seamless trade and an underpinning of our prosperity, and it must be protected. The Scottish Conservatives would restore this Parliament to what it is meant to be—a Parliament that serves the people and delivers results. The SNP has failed and Labour is failing. Scotland demands better, and the Scottish Conservatives can deliver the common sense that the people of Scotland now want to see.
I call Angus Robertson to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. If he could take us to 5 pm, that would be very helpful.
16:50
Before today’s debate, I wondered to myself whether we might finally hear any plausible justification for the internal market act. More than four years after it was imposed by the previous UK Government, without the consent of any devolved legislature, I wondered whether someone might be able to set out the reasons why it was necessary. Of course, we have heard no such arguments, because there are no good reasons for the internal market act. It remains utterly indefensible. No one seriously believes that the act is necessary to protect intra-UK trade and Scottish jobs—that is a total nonsense. It is entirely possible to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to trade and to have a system of workable, proportionate regulatory co-operation while, at the same time, respecting devolution and the powers of this Parliament.
The internal market act was always driven by political calculation—it was not a policy necessity. Despite the people of Scotland rejecting Brexit, the previous UK Government used it as a pretext to attack devolution and this Parliament’s powers. It tried to pretend that the act simply replaced European Union rules. That is untrue. The European single market provides a well-functioning, balanced, proportionate and rules-based system of market oversight.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
Not at the moment.
The internal market act introduced an arbitrary, opaque and unaccountable regime in which laws passed by a democratically elected legislature can be nullified on a whim and in which decisions on matters of profound importance to the people of Scotland can be set aside at the discretion of an unaccountable minister in London.
Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?
I have said that I am not giving way at this stage. I have a lot to get through.
Yes, the election of a new UK Government last July on a manifesto commitment to reset relations after the deep damage done to devolution by the previous Government offered grounds for hope. However, the evidence so far suggests that either the new UK Government does not grasp the damage that the internal market act has done and is doing, or it simply is not interested.
Rachael Hamilton rose—
To unilaterally rule out repeal of the act, given the position of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the position of the Scottish Labour Party, the position of the Welsh Government, the position of the Welsh Parliament and the position of the Welsh Labour Party, is totally unacceptable. The new UK Government must think again. It must commit to working with other Governments of the UK to deliver a better, workable and agreed alternative to the discredited and the unworkable internal market act.
I will briefly address the points raised by members, including Stephen Kerr and Rachael Hamilton. The first point is that there is a misapprehension among some members of this Parliament, particularly those on the Conservative benches, who do not seem to understand that there are things known as common frameworks. Those are the basis of dealing with internal market issues. Common frameworks were introduced before the internal market act but they have never been allowed to work properly. That is why the internal market act is utterly and totally superfluous and dangerous.
Neil Bibby’s Alice through the looking-glass logic welcomes a UK Labour Party review that rejects the position of his party in this Parliament. It is utterly baffling.
Lorna Slater reminded members of how the internal market act has been used to overrule the Scottish Parliament without evidence, without justification and without democratic accountability.
Willie Rennie was absolutely right to say that the IMA should be repealed. It is strange, then, that the UK Government ruled that out, despite that being the position of the Scottish Labour Party and MSPs across that side of the chamber. Incidentally, that is the position of five out of the six political parties in this Parliament.
George Adam gave us a powerful reminder of the dangers of the internal market act, whereas Jackson Carlaw, in his usual interesting and enjoyable way, lamented about the workings of devolution. Perhaps, on reflection, he might also acknowledge that the internal market act drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement.
Kenneth Gibson tutored those of us who do not appreciate the limits of devolution and those who choose to use the rhetoric of Scotland having one of the strongest devolved Parliaments in the world. One would no doubt fail one’s higher modern studies course if one were to write such a thing.
Alex Rowley thinks that today’s debate is depressing, but he apparently does not find it depressing that his party’s position in the Scottish Parliament is being blocked by his own party at Westminster. I found that particularly baffling.
Emma Roddick was right to point out that the IMA has impacts across the powers of devolution. It impacts on all the issues that Alex Rowley and others raised as being important.
Foysol Choudhury seemed content with the wording of a UK consultation that rules out his own position on IMA repeal. He wanted to hear a Scottish Government contribution to the consultation. It is simple: repeal the internal market act. That is the position of the Parliament and it was the position of his party. It is beyond me why he and the rest of his colleagues have done a U-turn.
Foysol Choudhury was followed by Martin Whitfield, who made reference to a reset. I agree that a reset would be a tremendously good thing. However, I find it odd that his party thinks that a reset in the relationship can be brought about by the UK Government ignoring his position and the position of members on his front bench, and by his colleague, the representative for East Lothian in the UK Parliament, ignoring him on a matter such as this.
Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?
I am happy to give way to the member so that he can explain why he has U-turned on his own position.
Is the tone, attitude, approach and view that is being taken in the cabinet secretary’s speech and the speeches of others conducive to a relationship with the UK Government that is productive, which is how I have heard the relationship described by members on the Government front bench?
I say very gently to Martin Whitfield, who talked wistfully in his speech about the need for cross-party co-operation: we had it. We agreed. The Scottish Labour Party agreed with the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Alba. We agreed by a clear majority in the Parliament that the IMA should be repealed. Sadly, it is the Scottish Labour Party that has given up on cross-party co-operation and it is Martin Whitfield who is prepared to accept the ruling out of his position, his party’s position, the Government’s position and the Parliament’s position. That is utterly beyond me.
This point is the most baffling thing of all. Every member of the Parliament knows that, if one is having a review, it is not difficult to consider the broadest range of options. Why did Martin Whitfield’s colleagues in Westminster, including Douglas Alexander, decide that they were going to rule out his position and his own party’s position? It is utterly baffling. It would have cost nothing to do that and they should have done it, but they deliberately chose not to do it. I am sorry—that is not a reset.
I believe that an alternative, workable system is easily achieved with political will and political imagination. We have the blueprint for a better system in the form of common frameworks. As has been noted, the UK Government itself proposed that common frameworks should be the principal means of managing regulatory divergence by agreement.
However, the UK Government has yet to set out how that would be achieved. The IMA applies automatically in nearly every case, with almost no exceptions. What scope is there for sensible, evidence-based engagement when the act renders such engagement meaningless? What incentive is there to agree approaches that ensure regulatory coherence while respecting devolution when the act can simply nullify the effect of a devolved law? [Interruption.]
Mr Kerr.
We need more than vague words. We need a recognition that the internal market act is utterly discredited and a commitment to co-design a new workable replacement.
The previous UK Government used Brexit—which was rejected by the people of Scotland—to launch a sustained and systematic attack on the principle and purpose of devolution. The IMA is the most toxic element of that legacy and it must be consigned to the dustbin of history.
That concludes the debate on protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Air adhart
Renters’ Rights Bill