Official Report 923KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-14113, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on repealing the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the ongoing and potentially far-reaching implications of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA) as, it considers, a repeated and systematic undermining of devolution and the Scottish Parliament; considers that, despite the previous UK administration’s stated commitment to work through intergovernmental structures during the Brexit process, the UKIMA is one of four instances where UK Conservative ministers chose to disregard the Sewel Convention, following the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020; understands that the introduction of the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles obligate Scotland to accept goods and services from other parts of the UK, even if they do not meet Scotland’s higher regulatory standards, or correspond with key local policies such as minimum alcohol unit pricing, which has an exemption in the Act but, it considers, can still technically be caught by the UKIMA’s non-discrimination principle, or the prohibition of certain single-use plastics, as well as other devolved areas if deemed to undermine barriers to trade under the UKIMA; considers that UK ministers can now impose market access principles on devolved policy areas without input from the devolved legislature, most concerningly in areas such as healthcare, where the UK Government can subject “healthcare services provided in hospitals” and “other healthcare facilities or at other places” to market principles in Scotland; highlights its concern following the current UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care’s reported proclamation to “[hold] the door wide open” to private interests in the NHS; considers that UK ministers can now make spending decisions on devolved matters and have already used these powers to replace programmes previously administered via European Structural Funds; understands that the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party and Green Party rejected the UKIMA in the House of Commons and that it received the largest government defeat in the House of Lords since 1999; further understands that the UK Government did not seek legislative consent from the devolved legislatures; recalls that the Scottish Parliament voted on a motion for debate refusing consent, which was supported by the Scottish Labour Party, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Scottish Green Party and Scottish National Party, which it understands was only the second instance since the Parliament’s establishment in which consent has been withheld, following the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020; understands that, during the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, a range of stakeholders, including business and farming organisations, environmental groups, public health charities and professional organisations, raised concerns, which it considers were downplayed or not acknowledged by the UK Government, and notes the calls on the UK Labour administration to repeal the UKIMA, restore respect for the devolution settlement, and ensure that the rights and interests of the people in the Cunninghame North constituency and elsewhere in Scotland are upheld.
17:01
I am grateful to Scottish National Party and Green MSPs for supporting the motion on repealing the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and enabling the debate to take place. I am deeply disappointed that Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs, who opposed the passage of the 2020 act in the Scottish Parliament, while their colleagues in the House of Commons did likewise, did not support such a debate taking place. However, I hope that the members of those parties who are in the chamber today will contribute to the debate.
The 2020 act represents a blatant threat to devolution. Sir Keir Starmer, when in opposition, condemned the act as
“Seriously undermining the fabric of the United Kingdom.”
Labour was right then, so I hope that we will see a commitment from it to that principle now.
We should remember that the act is far more than the dry, technical trading legislation that the Tories said that it would be. Rather, it gives United Kingdom Government ministers the power, at the stroke of a pen, to legislate in any area of devolved governance, possibly behind closed doors, without democratic scrutiny or consent.
As Willie Rennie said of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill,
“The bill is unnecessary. It is rushed. It is ill conceived. It will undermine the United Kingdom partnership, put power in the hands of just one minister and break international law. The Scottish Parliament should reject the legislative consent motion and the UK Government should withdraw the bill without delay.”
The 2020 act is a direct assault on the principles of devolution, the autonomy of our legislature and the democratic will of the Scottish people. It is also a breach of the vow, which was made almost exactly a decade ago, to put Scotland at the heart of the UK Government. In fact, the UK Government is now able to drive a stake through the heart of Scotland.
Beneath the surface, the act is yet another steady erosion of the Scottish Parliament’s powers—a trend that has been clearly observed as part of the Brexit process. Alex Rowley aptly stated:
“For the avoidance of doubt, the bill is a full-on attack on the existing devolution settlement.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 79, 75.]
His Labour colleague Mark Drakeford, the former First Minister of Wales, said:
“The UK government instead of relying, as we wish, on agreement on discussion on finding common ways to address common problems, their answer is to smash and grab the devolution settlement”.
The Welsh Senedd joined the Scottish Parliament in overwhelmingly opposing the bill.
We have witnessed at first hand that, contrary to UK ministers’ assurances, the 2020 act does not simply replicate the European Union single market’s regulatory coherence, nor mirror the internal market rules of other devolved or federal states. Rather, the 2020 act systematically undermines the devolution settlement. A pertinent example of that was the introduction of the shared prosperity fund, with UK ministers awarding themselves, and any future Governments, spending powers that were previously exercised by Scottish ministers under the EU structural fund.
The delicate balance that previously aimed to ensure that decisions were made locally and that they reflected Scotland-specific needs and factors, while allowing other policy objectives to be pursued alongside market goals, is now directly undermined by the 2020 act.
Before Scotland was taken out of Europe, we witnessed at first hand Scottish ministers’ informed spending decisions regarding EU structural funding, with them investing in programmes such as the modern apprenticeship scheme and the low-carbon infrastructure transition programme. The centralisation of that fund, combined with the heavy-handed common branding approach that has been imposed by UK ministers, risks undermining the Scotland-focused progress that has been made over the past 25 years.
Prior to the implementation of that policy, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations was among many organisations that urged that funding priorities should be set at a devolved level to tackle inequalities and enhance human rights. Those warnings went unheeded and, four years on, those concerns remain. Scotland now has a significantly constrained devolution settlement, with no vote being cast to mandate such constraint.
To be clear, devolution was never intended to be a footnote in the UK’s—unwritten—constitution; it was meant to provide the devolved nations with a meaningful role in shaping policies that are unique to their specific circumstances.
The act undermines devolution domestically, but it also curtails our international influence, especially in the area of trade. Although trade policy is reserved, trade deals are no longer the neat, compartmentalised affairs of decades ago—they sprawl across a wide range of policy areas, many of which are devolved. The act forces Scotland to manage the consequences of those trade decisions, despite its having no representation in the decision-making process. That undermines initiatives that members of the Scottish Parliament were democratically elected to deliver, such as the banning of single-use plastics.
Indeed, under the act’s principle of mutual recognition, goods that fall short of Scotland’s stringent environmental standards can still be traded here, facilitated by more lenient regulations that are upheld elsewhere in the UK or by trade agreements that have been forged without the Scottish Parliament being consulted, let alone with our consent.
In order to fully appreciate the implications of the act, it is crucial to consider how it would intersect with some of the major successes of devolution, were they to be introduced today. According to Public Health Scotland, since the introduction of the policy, minimum unit pricing
“has reduced deaths directly caused by alcohol consumption by an estimated 13.4% and hospital admissions by 4.1%”.
Although minimum unit pricing has been heralded as a “life saving policy” by Alcohol Focus Scotland, the policy, as introduced, would have been caught by the 2020 act’s mutual recognition principle if it had been proposed today.
Although the UK Government reluctantly amended the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to exclude “manner of sale” requirements from the mutual recognition principles, minimum unit pricing could still be caught by the 2020 act’s non-discrimination principles—if not by automatic application, by private actors making challenges with reference to non-discrimination. That is not just a legal technicality; it is a slow drip-drip erosion of devolved powers under the guise of maintaining market harmony.
Scotland’s devolved Government has a track record of pioneering market interventions that protect public health, the environment and social welfare. The ban on raw milk sales, restrictions on plastic cotton buds and microbeads, strict recycling targets and, possibly, the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 all demonstrate the creative policy making that devolution was designed to foster. However, the lingering question remains as to whether existing protections are strong enough to safeguard those policies, which were put in place to protect Scots, the environment and devolution, from future legal challenges or political pressures that could erode their effectiveness.
The 2020 act is far from a mere legislative tool; it strikes at the heart of devolution. By granting UK ministers authority over decisions that should rest with the Scottish Parliament, it reduces the ability of devolved Governments—whoever is in power—to govern, which is, no doubt, the intention.
If devolution is to remain meaningful, it cannot be left vulnerable to Westminster’s shifting agenda or eroded under the guise of market cohesion. The new UK Labour Government must repeal the 2020 act, which it has long opposed, if it truly values the integrity of devolution. Otherwise, we risk seeing the very foundation of our autonomy—such as it is—being chipped away, piece by piece, until it becomes a mere shadow of its former promise.
We move to the open debate.
17:07
I am grateful to Kenny Gibson for lodging the motion. I must say that I have respect for him, as he is undoubtedly one of the finest conveners of the Finance and Public Administration Committee that the Parliament has ever had. I also dare not speak against him personally, on the basis that he is a fellow alumnus of the University of Stirling. However, if there was a Holyrood Magazine award for the motion with the greatest content of manufactured grievance, he would win it by a landslide. For Kenny Gibson to quote minimum unit pricing as a success on this day of all days, when we hear that the number of deaths of our fellow Scots from alcohol-related disease is at a 15-year high, was a mistake, which I hope that he will recognise.
I was quoting directly from Alcohol Focus Scotland, which I believe has more expertise in the area than you or I do. It looked at what would have happened in Scotland had minimum unit pricing not been introduced, and the situation would have been considerably worse.
I can give you the time back, Mr Kerr.
I do not dispute that the esteemed body that the member mentions is more of an expert than I am, but I can understand basic statistics, and the number of alcohol deaths is at a 15-year high.
When we think of the billions of pounds of trade that we do with the rest of the United Kingdom, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs in businesses that are engaged in that trade, it beggars belief that anyone would argue against UKIMA. However, here we are again, having another debate—which verges on the meaningless—against the very idea of Britain and British, and the British marketplace. Thank goodness that the people of Scotland have seen through the nationalist mirage, which is based solely on ideological fanaticism.
UKIMA creates the single market regulatory alignment that is needed to support internal domestic trade, creating more jobs and more prosperity across Scotland. It also gives us the ability to strike trade deals. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which is the latest trade deal, is one of the most exciting opportunities for British businesses in a generation and has been widely praised by industry across all sectors. Without the structure of a regulated single market in the United Kingdom, we would not be able to do any of those trade deals. If the storied history of the people of these islands is about anything, it is about our on-going appetite for trade with every quarter of the world.
I did not hear the SNP say—
Will the member give way?
I will.
If you are so keen on regulated trade—
Speak through the chair, please.
—why are you against the single European market, which would include—
Not only is Kenny Gibson a graduate of the University of Stirling, but he is a mind-reader, because I was about to say that I did not hear the SNP say a word against the European single market. Kenny Gibson has just confirmed that. The credit for that very much belongs to Margaret Thatcher and a Conservative UK Government. Even her sternest critics give her credit for the work that she led in its creation.
As a unionist, I am, of course, mindful that we live in a devolved setting. The United Kingdom Parliament remains sovereign, especially in matters that underpin the cohesion and prosperity of all parts of the union. Nationalism works by cynically manipulating concocted slights and by stoking our fears and worst instincts. I admit that—members will be very interested to hear this, although this is not a new comment from me—there are gaps in the constitutional machinery that should work to bring the Governments and Parliaments of these islands together. I contend that those gaps become a wide open space for the manufacture of the kind of grievance that we heard from Kenny Gibson.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will. I hope that I have time to do so.
I can give you the time back. Briefly, I call Clare Adamson.
I congratulate you on using Brexit as an example—
Speak through the chair, please.
—because the post-Brexit Northern Ireland trade settlement is very different, and we look on with admiration as that country is still in the European single market.
The member talked about manufactured grievance, but the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, of which I am the convener, is in line with the House of Lords, the Senedd and Stormont in criticising the position. In fact, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution has said that the legislation
“risks de-stabilising this integral part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements—at a time when it has never been more important for central and devolved governments to work together”.
In addition the Senedd has said that the legislation
“represents a new restriction on the ability of devolved legislatures to effectively implement new laws in areas of devolved competence.”
That is not grievance from SNP members; it is grievance that is contained in the criticism of committees of this Parliament, of the Senedd and of Stormont. We do not recognise—
Interventions need to be briefer. I call Stephen Kerr.
This is exactly about nationalist grievance from SNP members. I am making the case—[Interruption.]—if the member would care to listen, for a review of the constitutional arrangements by which the Governments and Parliaments on these islands work together.
I have long said—I said this when I was an MP, and I say the same as an MSP—that the devolution arrangements do not sufficiently encompass and underscore a vision of partnering. There are still inadequately robust structures for formal departmental and intergovernmental working or for local government agencies or other national agencies to work together.
Will the member give way?
I think that I am trying your patience now, Presiding Officer.
You can take an intervention, if it is brief, and then you can start to conclude.
I might be the only speaker who is speaking in this fashion. I give way to the cabinet secretary.
I want to provide a short point of information. Stephen Kerr is aware that common frameworks were introduced before the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. That was supposed to be the mechanism through which to regulate such issues. There is agreement about that. Does he believe that they work, or does he believe that they do not work?
I am grateful to Angus Robertson for his intervention. I hope that he heard me say that I believe that the current arrangements and structures are inadequately robust to facilitate that level of working together. For example, having an established process for dispute resolution is long overdue. I hope that the Labour Government will now pick up on those gaps and, working across the parties at Westminster and here, create robust systems of working between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations and mayors. That will create the basis for collaboration and leave no space for the kind of pettifogging grievance that is embodied in the motion.
I call Christine Grahame to speak for around four minutes.
17:15
You caught me on the hop.
I thank Kenneth Gibson for lodging the motion, the subject of which seems, on the surface, to be esoteric, in legalese and, true to Gibson form, very lengthy. However, I say to Mr Kerr that it is significant, not meaningless.
By way of background, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Green Party rejected the UK Internal Market Act 2020 in the House of Commons, and it received the largest Government defeat in the House of Lords since 1999.
The UK Government did not seek legislative consent from the devolved legislatures, and the Scottish Parliament debated and voted on a motion to refuse consent, which, again, was supported by the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish National Party.
Although the 2020 act has had a far-reaching effect on the devolved Administrations, there was no discussion or agreement with them. I say to Mr Kerr, who is looking for dispute resolution, that the key to that is mutual consent, respect and partnership—none of which happened in all of those years under the Conservative Government.
What does the 2020 act do? It is best to give some examples, which are all connected to the sale and price of certain goods in Scotland, such as the banning of fireworks, vapes, rodent glue traps and animal snares, and matters that relate to safety and animal welfare—policy issues that are reserved to this Parliament. Much though we might have wanted to ban the sale of glue traps or snares, even if there were a unanimous vote by this Parliament, a ban on their sale could not be introduced unless the UK Government mandated it. The way around that would be for us to ban their use, which would make it pretty pointless to sell or buy them, but that should not be necessary. Fortunately, England has banned the use of glue traps. Indeed, the rules on sales and pricing could have impacted on alcohol minimum unit pricing but, as my colleague Kenneth Gibson has already said, that measure was already in force and predated the 2020 act and, therefore, is exempted.
Anything that could be deemed by the UK to cause a barrier—and I will stick to trade—within the UK would fall foul of the legislation, such as price differentials. That would be the case even if, for the best of reasons, Scotland wanted those price differentials. The 2020 act is an example of the UK policing devolution, and I do not think that it is by accident.
When a devolved policy has the backing of this democratically elected Parliament, if it affects sales or prices—either upwards or downwards—compared with England, why should that policy require the affirmative nod from the UK or even be blocked? It is an erosion of devolution.
As well as the internal market’s penetration into devolved areas, there is the reallocation of funds that previously came directly to the Scottish Government from the EU and are now allocated directly by the UK Government to communities, which bypasses our devolved responsibilities—Michael Gove labelled that as “levelling up”. That is bad enough, but it is compounded by the fact that Scotland voted by 62 per cent to remain and, therefore, clearly rejected Brexit. There was a face-saving announcement that those funds would be dispersed in partnership, but there was no partnership and there is still none. There is no new respect for devolution.
For example, the restrictions on winter fuel payments were announced and imposed without so much as a phone call to the Scottish or Welsh Governments. Under Labour, the Scottish Office, under the stewardship of Ian Murray, has its own funds for investment. The figure is £150 million, and, according to the oracle for Labour, the Sunday Mail,
“Labour is set to change the law within months to allow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray to bypass Holyrood and directly fund anti-poverty schemes.”
Incidentally, he could have passed that over to the Scottish Government to allow all pensioners to access the winter fuel payment, but of course he did not.
The proposed new UK legislation—
Will Ms Grahame take an intervention?
Briefly, Mr Kerr.
Certainly—I am delighted to do so, although I do hope that it is worth while.
I am not sure who in this place decides whether things are worth while. Quite a few contributions might be censured.
Is Christine Grahame seriously objecting to more money being directed to help the poorest people in the communities of Scotland? Is she seriously objecting to that on the basis of process? Is not what really matters what is aimed to be achieved? Is not what really matters what good comes from this, rather than bleating on about process?
I call Christine Grahame.
I remind Christine Grahame that we are in a devolved Parliament.
Mr Kerr, I am calling Christine Grahame.
Unfortunately, Mr Kerr, you are an expert in bleating, and that intervention was not very worth while.
Speak through the chair, Ms Grahame.
I beg your pardon.
Mr Kerr bleats regularly, and that just bypasses me, thankfully—rather as funding on devolved issues bypasses the Scottish Parliament.
Of course poverty is important. Incidentally, we would not be so poor if we had not had so many years of the Tory Government and its austerity, which is now continued by Labour. However, that is another matter.
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green) rose—
Heavens, I seem to have stirred a bit of interest. I will take an intervention from Patrick Harvie.
Patrick Harvie, please be brief.
I wonder whether Christine Grahame agrees that Stephen Kerr, by suggesting that the mere process involving whether something is devolved or reserved should not prevent a Government from taking action, has made a case that this Parliament and this Government should be able to do whatever it likes on reserved matters.
Strangely enough, I agree, but that is for a debate on independence.
The proposed new UK legislation would massively expand the powers of the Scotland Office. It was started by the Conservatives but, of course, Labour is just following happily in their footsteps, like a puppy. Does it matter? Of course it does. Policies on domestic issues such as poverty are made here in Scotland, for Scotland, by the Scottish people. Perhaps we should all repeat the mantra that power devolved is power retained. We are watching this happen before our very eyes. There is not even an attempt by any UK Government—Tory or Labour—to hide it.
I will finish with a quote from Tony Blair, because we seem to be seeing Blair policies again.
Be brief.
This is from just before when the Scottish Parliament was established. He explained:
“I don’t see what the problem is. We will not raise the basic or top rate of income tax. That is our commitment here in Scotland as much as it is our commitment in England and that will remain ... The Scottish Labour Party is not planning to raise income tax and once the power is given it is like any parish council, it’s got the right to exercise it”.
He said what he really thought of the proposed Scottish Parliament. A “parish council” seems to be the route that Labour is taking. That is what it really thinks of us. We must remember that what the UK says it gives, it can take away.
17:22
I find myself with somewhat mixed feelings, given the debate so far. I have just heard Christine Grahame describe the Labour Party as a puppy. Given her long-standing commitment to the welfare of dogs, I will take that as a compliment—that being a puppy is a good thing. I also have to say that Ian Murray will be very concerned that he now has an ardent supporter in Stephen Kerr. He should be greatly worried.
On a serious point, I am encouraged by the debate, and I will take an optimistic view in it, because what we have heard so far is an earnest discussion about the nature of devolution and how it should be. There has been a fair challenge from Kenny Gibson about how we take that forward—what the relationship between the two Governments should be. Critically, we have also heard from perhaps one of the more ardent unionists in the chamber—if Stephen Kerr will forgive me for describing him as such—who recognised the deficiencies of devolution and the need to understand and maybe entrench it permanently in our constitutional settlement. Maybe—just maybe—we can hope that there might be some points for agreement.
Let us be very clear. After 14 years of Conservative Government, we need a fresh approach. We need a different approach from the UK Government, and I hope that we will see that. Within the short first 10 weeks of the new UK Government, there have been meetings at Bute house not just between the Prime Minister and the First Minister but involving the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It may be a bit of a hyperbole, but I do not recall so many such meetings at Bute house over the past 10 years. That might not be strictly accurate but, clearly, there is a commitment on both sides to renew the levels of commitment and engagement. Ultimately, that is the problem with the internal market act.
Christine Grahame rose—
I am happy to give way to Christine Grahame.
I encourage those who are making interventions to press their buttons as well.
I beg your pardon.
Does the member therefore consider it, to put it very—[Interruption.]
Deputy Presiding Officer, it is my understanding that we are not allowed to use visual props. I seek your guidance on whether audio props are similarly disbarred from the chamber. [Laughter.]
I think that the member was going to challenge me about what that means, but I will be very clear. Already from this Government, we see a renewed commitment to our international partners. The UK Government has agreed to a bilateral treaty with Germany, which will come into effect in early 2025. That is a very substantial and material difference—
Will the member take an intervention?
If Mr Kerr will forgive me, I would like to make some progress.
Let us be very clear that, with the 2020 act, we are not where we would want to start. We did not want the act to pass, but we have a great deal—
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I apologise to Daniel Johnson and to the other members in the chamber for my incompetence in handling my phone. I am very sorry—I genuinely am.
Thank you for that, Ms Grahame.
If we are going to have to make apologies for incompetence, I might need some more time to account for mine.
The key point is that we have scarce and valuable parliamentary time. We must absolutely keep the 2020 act and seek reform where possible. However, Kenny Gibson brought up some important points about the principle of devolution and about ensuring that we protect its unique role.
Let us be clear about what the Labour manifesto sets out. It says that we will renew the devolution relationship, in relation both to the devolved nations and to the metro mayors. It also says that we will seek to strengthen the Sewel convention and to ensure that UK bodies are far more representative of our nations and regions. That includes representation of Scotland on the Industrial Strategy Council and other bodies.
I have a very simple and straightforward question—will the Labour Party repeal the 2020 act?
I do not know, is my accurate answer. I do not have a hotline to number 10 open right now. I was hoping to set out the real commitments, not just in intent but in substance, to put in place the mechanisms that Stephen Kerr alluded to in relation to the requirement. We need that mutual recognition. My reflection is that, to date, we have focused too much on the legislative interactions between Westminster and this devolved Parliament. We need to enhance and improve the intergovernmental structures, such as they are. That way, we enhance devolution.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I am out of time.
I hope that people hold the new Labour Government to account on the changes to the devolution relationship and that we see greater progress towards improved intergovernmental relationships. Ultimately, that will enhance the United Kingdom Government’s ability to govern and enhance this Parliament’s ability to work in partnership with the UK Government.
17:28
I thank my colleague Kenneth Gibson for securing the debate. We all know that my preference is to have independence for Scotland rather than to protect devolution, but devolution is all that we have at the moment. I am surprised that there are not more members from other political parties who have previously claimed to respect devolution wanting to speak in the debate.
We know that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, brought about in the wake of Brexit, has been a significant re-centralisation of power away from the devolved Administrations. For example, as has already been mentioned, it gives new spending powers to the UK Government in devolved areas, allowing it to bypass the devolved Governments and fund activities and organisations directly. We have already heard reference to October 2020, when the then bill was rejected by this Parliament.
Kenneth Gibson quoted a little of what Alex Rowley said, but Alex Rowley, in addition to describing the bill as
“a full-on attack on the existing devolution settlement”,
also said:
“we will not give support to any measures that will reduce and constrain the competence of the Scottish Parliament.”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; c 75.]
How right Alex Rowley, representing the Labour Party in Scotland, was then. As has already been asked, is that still Labour’s position today? It is clearly not.
The Tories were the only party in this Parliament that supported the UK Internal Market Act 2020, following the bidding of one of its architects, Michael Gove. It is such a pity that, in the early days of this new UK Labour Government, Michael Gove’s influence seems to continue unabated. Frankly, the truth of the matter is that, since coming to power, the new Labour Government has made no moves to eliminate, or even to raise or discuss, any of those measures that reduce and constrain the competence of the Scottish Parliament—indeed, the situation is quite the reverse.
Will the member take an intervention?
If the member can confirm on the record that the Labour Party—the new UK Government—has active plans to roll back the 2020 act, I will be delighted to accept his intervention.
Again, I am encouraged that members have such confidence in my influence on my UK colleagues. Does the member not recognise that commitments around things such as the Sewel convention and intergovernmental structures will radically alter the nature of the relationship between the two Governments and make some headway on the member’s points?
I rather think that the member makes my point for me, because it is still referenced as just that—a convention, which is therefore inherently weak.
Labour’s pre-election commitment to give £150 million of so-called levelling-up funds to the Scottish Office, therefore bypassing the Scottish Parliament, is warning enough that Labour is not to be trusted to look after Scotland’s interests. The avoidance of scrutiny, accountability, good governance, efficiency and effectiveness and a lack of respect are just some of the reasons why bypassing this Parliament is poor. [Interruption.] I might take another intervention in a little while.
I take what Daniel Johnson says in good faith, but the problem is that the Labour Party in Scotland has no power, and that is the way that it has always been. This example of disrespecting this Parliament is also not an aberration, given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced an attack on pensioners by taking away their universal winter fuel payment—something that Labour’s own research said could kill up to 4,000 people and would represent the
“single biggest attack on pensioners in a generation”.
Christine Grahame made it clear that this massive policy change has been made without consultation with any of the devolved administrations. Labour did not even consult charities and others who might have to pick up the pieces. Therefore, I suggest that an arrogant culture has been allowed to develop around the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and, given that, if there is to be any substantive change, I will be looking at the real meaning of that.
When the UK Internal Market Bill was being debated, some thought that the Sewel convention might come to this Parliament’s aid, but, as the optimists now realise, the Sewel convention is just that—a convention, with no legal effect. There is, therefore, no need for any UK Government to respect the views of this Parliament, and they often do not. It is a pity that the respective branch offices—for that is what they are—of Labour and the Tories—do not either. Ultimately, that is a huge disrespect to the people of Scotland.
I call the final speaker in the open debate. Mr Harvie, you have around four minutes.
17:33
I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing this debate to Parliament and congratulate him on doing so. I was very happy to put my name to the motion.
The stated purpose of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 needs to be recognised, and I think that ensuring continued trade and preventing the creation of unnecessary trade barriers is a legitimate purpose. I suspect that most of us would agree with that basic purpose. In fact, it is worth acknowledging that, whether we believe in a well-regulated market that is made to operate in the public interest or a deregulated free market—wherever we sit on that left-to-right spectrum—there is a case for having a large single market between countries without trade barriers. I believe in that as an objective.
However, there is a very deep irony in the fact that the act was brought about by the party that gave us Brexit—the party that took us out of such a large international single-market arrangement.
I have just rejoined the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. I did not take part in the committee’s inquiry into the trade barriers that have emerged post-Brexit, but we looked at its report at my first meeting back. What struck me was that not a single bit of evidence that the committee had taken suggested anything other than that significant trade barriers had emerged, and that not a single politician on the committee—from any political party—tried to deny the fact that Brexit has created trade barriers. The Conservatives must be the first right-wing party that derides anyone who criticises capitalism but then joyfully and gleefully creates new trade barriers where they do not need to exist. They pretended that they did not believe in trade barriers but then introduced legislation to prevent them.
It is worth acknowledging that the European Union has a much wider international, multinational single market. It has mechanisms to prevent unnecessary trade barriers from being created, which it put in place without the need to take the draconian powers that the then UK Government took in the 2020 act.
Other members have mentioned the political parties—Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and the Greens—that voted against the legislation in the UK Parliament and against giving legislative consent in this Parliament. Therefore, it is clear that the defence of the 2020 act is not the mainstream position in our political landscape and that opposition to that legislation is the mainstream position.
It is not that the 2020 act could be used to constrain devolved Parliaments rather than to ensure co-operation, dialogue and mutual agreement—it has been used to do that. It is clear that the then UK Government did not care about gaining legislative consent to interference in devolved powers. The act allows the UK Government to unilaterally override devolved decisions on devolved competencies without any notice.
I will mention the then UK Government’s abuse of its power in relation to the deposit return scheme. For years, that Government had a policy commitment to introduce a deposit return scheme in England. In fact, it was going to consult on it five years before the end stages of Scotland’s attempt to get a deposit return scheme working. Five years on from that commitment, there was no detail in the UK Government’s policy. It had not developed its policy, legislation or regulations; it had not done anything to advance that agenda. From the point of view of the then UK Government, the main premise for undermining Scotland’s scheme was the need for a UK-wide approach, yet years after making the commitment to introduce such a scheme, there was no detail on what exactly Scotland was supposed to align with. That was an abuse of power: the then UK Government said that we had to align with a UK approach while utterly refusing to say what that approach was.
It is clear from all that, and it was clear in the Scottish Government’s response to the then UK Government, that the latter would not hesitate to use the 2020 act to undermine, override and rewrite devolved legislation, disregarding—not seeking—a four-nation approach.
This is about more than just the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We have seen the abuse of power in the 2020 act, the abuse of power in the use of the section 35 order in the Scotland Act 1998 and the willingness of a UK Government to persistently and routinely ignore decisions on legislative consent motions. With those three elements combined, we no longer have the devolution settlement that we voted for back in 1998. If the UK Labour Government is at all serious about wanting a reset—whatever that means—of the relationship between the Governments, it must end all three forms of abuse of power.
I call Angus Robertson to respond to the debate. You have around seven minutes.
17:39
I congratulate Kenneth Gibson on securing this members’ business debate on a matter that should be of the utmost importance to every member of this Parliament, across all parties. It is a topic that should transcend party politics as it goes to the heart of the principles and the purpose of devolution and the powers of this Parliament, which were endorsed decisively by the people of Scotland a quarter of a century ago.
I will consider some of the contributions that we have heard in a moment, but first I will make a few comments of my own.
The first is a point so obvious that it should hardly need to be made—namely, that no one wants to see unnecessary barriers to trade. It is perfectly possible to have a properly functioning market across the United Kingdom while also recognising and respecting devolution. The argument that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is a necessary or indeed proportionate measure to preserve trade across these islands is frankly entirely without merit. That it was the previous UK Government that ushered in new trade barriers with the world’s largest and most integrated single market and then imposed the act on this Parliament is an irony that is lost on no one, except perhaps Stephen Kerr.
I mention the European single market because the comparisons with the act are telling. The single market operates on principles of co-decision and consent. There are enforceable legal protections for the powers of its constituent parts, robust proportionality tests and the proper balancing of economic considerations with wider social and environmental concerns across the European Union. Those are all fundamental features of a properly functioning market regime, but all are missing from the act, and they are missing from it by design.
The act undermines and threatens the devolution settlement in a way that would surely never have been envisaged by the Labour Government that delivered this Parliament’s founding statute and set its powers, and it goes against the grain of the new UK Government’s stated ambition for further devolution across the United Kingdom.
We have seen the act being used to frustrate the will of this Parliament, to thwart the delivery of Scotland’s deposit return scheme and to bypass democratic oversight of how money is spent on devolved matters in Scotland. As Kenneth Gibson noted, it also creates the risk of a regulatory race to the bottom and leaves the door open to the marketisation of the national health service at the stroke of a pen.
I will reflect on some of the contributions that members have made. Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right to raise the issue of minimum unit pricing for alcohol. I have absolutely no doubt that, had that policy been proposed when the previous UK Government was in office, that Government would have used the act to torpedo it. That is why I sought to intervene on Stephen Kerr—I wanted to get an insight and understanding from the only party that voted against the cross-party consensus in this Parliament when we refused to give legislative content to the act.
Common frameworks might seem to some people to be dry constitutional arrangements, but they are really important. For those who do not know about them, common frameworks were agreed as the basis on which the UK Government and the devolved Administrations would work through the challenges of policy divergence. Devolution is about being able to make different decisions—Christine Grahame made that self-evident and important point powerfully—but the act was seen as a vehicle by the previous UK Government for driving a coach and horses through devolved decision making, although we have been elected by the people to make decisions and deliver on policy choices. We hope that no other Government will see the act in that way, but, so long as the act is there and operates as it currently does, it could.
Will the cabinet secretary accept an intervention?
Forgive me; I need to make some progress and want to ensure that I reflect everyone’s contributions.
I very much welcome Daniel Johnson’s acknowledgement of the shortcomings of the act. Those shortcomings are why I and colleagues welcomed the fact that the Scottish Labour Party, with others in this chamber—the only exception being the Scottish Conservative party—voted in favour of the repeal of act. It was such a flawed piece of legislation that Labour believed that it should be repealed.
I hope that Mr Johnson’s comments signpost genuine change from the incoming United Kingdom Government. We were relentlessly promised change and told that things would be different, so I am surprised that the Scottish Labour front-bench spokesman does not know what his UK Government intends to do in relation to the act. It would be good if, before the next time we debate the issue, his colleagues would tell him the line that he should pursue in this chamber.
Michelle Thomson was absolutely right to underline the concern that the Scottish Labour Party, having voted to repeal the legislation, cannot even tell the chamber what its position is or what it will do at Westminster. I very much hope that Daniel Johnson’s colleagues look closely at this debate and realise that the issue should be a priority, regardless of the present legislative timetable, because it has to be dealt with.
I hope that Angus Robertson will acknowledge that I spoke about the substance of the material change that the Labour Government hopes to bring about. Really, the key point was about the precise mechanisms for delivering that.
Then I will of course look closely at that.
Finally, to Patrick Harvie—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, I will not, because I am running out of time.
Patrick Harvie made the absolutely right connection between what Brexit did and how the previous UK Government acted, especially in relation to the deposit return scheme. It does not have to be that way. We have common frameworks and we now have an offer to do things differently. The Scottish Government has been working with the other Governments across the United Kingdom to finalise common frameworks and on intergovernmental mechanisms to manage policy divergence by agreement and in a manner that respects devolution.
There is an agreed process to exclude the work of the common frameworks from the 2020 act’s effect. That process was, unfortunately, not just ignored but routinely misrepresented by the previous UK Government. We now have the opportunity to work with a new UK Government that was elected on a manifesto commitment to reset relations with the devolved Governments to ensure that the exclusion process is scrupulously observed and that, in future, we take an approach that is based on mutual respect, proportionality, transparency and the use of evidence. What a welcome change that would be after recent years.
However, a properly observed process for excluding some matters from the act can only ever be a workaround, because the flaws in the act go much deeper and must be addressed. That was recognised in Parliament last October, when every party in the chamber, bar the Conservatives, supported a motion calling for the act’s repeal. The act is wholly discredited and hopelessly flawed. The Scottish Government stands ready to work with the new UK Government and the Governments of Wales and Northern Ireland to build a better system that is based on agreement and respect for the principle that drove the delivery of devolution: that decisions affecting Scotland are best taken in Scotland by this democratically elected Parliament.
That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of Parliament.
Meeting closed at 17:47.Previous
Decision Time