Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have mentioned two acts of the UK Parliament, and what I am driving at is whether you have concerns that it could use its powers in other ways, too.

It is on the single-use plastics issue that has been mentioned and the lessons for how we would deal with the UK Government again if similar issues arose.

How have you engaged with stakeholders on some of the issues? I was interested to hear you use the phrase “coach and horses”. Those of us who are on the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee have heard that phrase used by NFU Scotland, whose representative said:

“we have had the internal market act, which, as I said, almost drives a coach and horses through the principles of common frameworks”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 December 2021; c 4.]

You mentioned it as a backstop, but does the existence of other such legislation provide a direct threat to what you are trying to achieve through the common frameworks?

I understand that the Law Society of Scotland has also raised some of those issues. It noted:

“there are no domestic legal constraints on the powers of the UK Parliament or UK Government concerning common frameworks.”

Given the sovereign nature of the UK Parliament and the backstop that it presents in all those matters, what conversations have you had with the UK Government about how it intends to use those powers?

Obviously, the whole category of Government activity around the frameworks is forced upon us all by the existence of Brexit, which is another story.

Are all the elements of the frameworks—the working groups and so on—operational now, or are there bits of them that still have to be created?

My take on that differs slightly from that of the convener. It is up to this Parliament to align if it chooses to align, but I will leave that there.

Cabinet secretary, will you say a bit more about how the four-country approach works in practical terms and how much room it leaves for divergence, given that it is this Parliament’s choice whether to diverge or align?

On the back of that, will you explain a bit more about what the market monitoring group does and how it came into being?

As I mentioned, we have heard from a number of experts. Sir Jonathan Jones KC, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and the Hansard Society all expressed concern about UK ministers being allowed, through the proposed legislation, to step firmly into devolved areas and to radically change the relationship with the Scottish Parliament. I think that the Hansard Society described that as a constitutional crisis. Is it?

Thank you for being here again, cabinet secretary. As I am sure that you will have heard if you were listening in, we have heard a lot this morning about the issues that such matters give rise to about the rule of law. Experts have told us their view on that from a legal point of view, but from the point of view of other European countries where the rule of law and constitutions and so forth are taken seriously, what does the current situation do for the UK’s reputation among them?

I will keep it to a couple of brief questions in that case.

I know that this is returning to a theme, but I want to ask about the relation between UK ministers and the Scottish Parliament that could or will emerge from the bill. We have talked a bit about Henry VIII powers and the implications for this Parliament. Thankfully, Henry VIII never had the opportunity to legislate in Scotland. Nonetheless, there is the combination of the Henry VIII powers and other provisions in the bill, together with the decline of the Sewel convention, which has been alluded to. What is the effect of that combination of things? I know that Sir Jonathan Jones mentioned a range of unfortunate precedents, or words to that effect. How does the bill combine with the fact that, arguably at least, there is a decline in the Scottish Parliament’s ability to rely on the Sewel convention?