���˿���

With your indulgence, convener, this is my first opportunity to say to Mr Harvie how sorry I am to hear his announcement that he is to stand down.

He has led his party with distinction over some years now—I cannot remember exactly how many.

I want to rest where I answered before, in signalling to the committee that I want to be as forward leaning as I can be about making common frameworks and their development something that involves Parliament as part of the process in holding the Government to account. It is not for me to restrain parliamentarians in their use of the chamber and in their ability to debate and decide on issues. I am signalling to Mr Harvie that I want Parliament to be involved in processes around common frameworks. As for the question that Mr Harvie highlighted, the timing of it is good, because we are beginning to see common frameworks getting up and running effectively across the policy areas.

Some of this is exceptionally dry. This committee might have a very busy programme and might not want to discuss every meeting of every committee that is dealing with issues under common frameworks, but occasionally there will be such discussions, and occasionally issues will come along. We know, because we have had them in the past, that there will be issues relating to the single market. As I have said before, the introduction of minimum unit pricing would be a good example of that. I am sorry—I should say for the uninitiated that that happened while Scotland and the United Kingdom were in the European Union. One had the ability to introduce policy divergence on a public health measure, and I fear that, had the minimum unit pricing proposal been made now, it would have been blocked by application of the internal market act.

Can I foresee issues of such importance coming along in the future? Absolutely, and it follows that parliamentarians, the committees of the Parliament and the chamber as a whole will wish to be seized of that, given their significant importance. Therefore, I am signalling to Mr Harvie, and to the committee, that I agree that the Parliament needs to be involved, and I am happy to work with the committee, as I have been on the likes of Scotland’s continuing alignment with the European Union, to ensure that that works.

I am disputing that, yes.

I would say that the biggest lesson is to ensure that there is the greatest possible public understanding of proposals that are being made, and an understanding that, if they wish, people can apply legislation that overrides the democratic wishes of this country’s Parliament. That is the biggest lesson that I would take.

The Scottish Government worked throughout that process in a way that tried to get the UK Government to operate in a respectful way. Unfortunately, it did not. That is always going to be the challenge in a state where the central Government views devolved Parliaments and Governments as being subordinate. There is no hierarchy of Governments in the UK. There are devolved and reserved powers, but there is no hierarchy of Governments. If one Government decides that it simply wants to overrule another because it does not like what that Government is doing, that is not the operation of devolution as it was proposed. I will resist the temptation to read into the record Mr Dewar’s position on that in the House of Commons, which was absolutely clear; I am referring to the governor-general quote.

That is notwithstanding whether we wish Scotland to proceed to become a normal independent country, where we will be deciding on such things ourselves, together with colleagues in the European Union—and this is where I am so disappointed about what the UK Government has done here. Mr Bibby and indeed everybody—all political practitioners—will understand that, if one wishes to review options, there is no reason why one would seek to exclude some things. That is what absolutely mystifies me about the UK Government’s approach. It would have cost it no political capital whatsoever to consider the positions of the Scottish Government and Parliament and the Welsh Government and Senedd, and to conclude something different—although I would have hoped that it would not. I hold out a hand to UK ministers today to say, “Please, think about this again.” I just do not understand why one chose to send a signal that one was not even prepared to consider other positions. That is not reset; that is not collegial; that is not having a proper working relationship and it is totally avoidable.

We went through the frankly appalling approach of the previous UK Government’s dealings with devolved Governments and Parliaments. I know that to be so, because I sat in the meetings with my colleagues from the Welsh Labour Party, the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland and Sinn Féin. My goodness, those are four parties with significant differences between them, but all of them were on the same page when it came to how the previous UK Government operated devolution: in a way that was confrontational, non-collegial and in bad faith.

We have an opportunity. I am not giving up on resets and the better atmospherics of things, but I am very disappointed. I try to find mild expressions to say so, but I am disappointed that the UK Government has chosen to ignore the position of this Parliament, the Scottish Government and, incidentally, Mr Bibby and his party, too.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on the UK Government’s statutory review of the internal market act.

Before I turn to that, given that we will undoubtedly touch on the needs of Scottish businesses, I should start by noting developments that happened overnight. We are all aware that the United States Administration will impose additional tariffs on imports. That will clearly have an impact on many Scottish businesses for which the United States is an important export market.

We do not believe that unilateral measures by the United States are the answer, and we are concerned about the negative impact of trade barriers on the Scottish economy. We urge the United States and all parties to come together and work towards mutually beneficial resolutions. We greatly value the strong social, cultural and economic ties that Scotland shares with the United States, and we will work to ensure that those continue to flourish.

I turn to the issue that is before us. Today, the Scottish Government publishes its position paper on the internal market act, and a copy has been provided to the committee in advance of today’s session.

The Scottish Government’s central proposition in the paper is simple: the act should be repealed and replaced with an equitable co-design system around the common frameworks approach. That is also the view of this Parliament, which has voted twice in favour of repeal.

As you know, convener, this committee concluded unanimously in February 2022 that the act “can automatically disapply” devolved legislation. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. Laws that have been passed in areas of devolved competence by a democratically accountable legislature can, indeed, be effectively nullified at the whim of a UK minister who is completely unaccountable to this Parliament.

The new UK Government was elected last year on a manifesto commitment to reset relations with the devolved Governments. In that context, it is regrettable that there was a failure even to consider repeal within the terms of the statutory review.

I remain hopeful that the UK Government will acknowledge the position of the Scottish Government and, indeed, that of our colleagues in Wales, and work with us to deliver an agreed and workable alternative to the internal market act.

One of the founding purposes of devolution was to support our ability to diverge on policy in a way that makes sense for the different needs and objectives in different parts of the United Kingdom.

The internal market act has created a system that erodes the Scottish Parliament’s ability to make devolved policy that addresses Scotland’s needs. Its effect has been to diminish the powers and autonomy of this place in favour of unilateral decision making on the part of the UK Government.

Given the significant problems with the act, addressing the damage that it has caused will require more than just procedural change. It requires a fundamental rethink and the development of a new model of regulatory co-operation that, while respecting devolution, supports the economic growth that we all want to see.

The internal market act is an international outlier because the way that it operates is very different from how well-designed internal market regimes operate elsewhere. It has no proportionality or subsidiarity principles, which are standard features of properly functioning internal market regimes elsewhere.

As we prepare to respond to the UK Government’s review, my colleagues and I have been considering the views of a wide variety of interests in Scotland. From those discussions, the Scottish Government remains in no doubt of the importance of ensuring that businesses in Scotland face no unnecessary barriers to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom.

It is equally clear that the internal market act is not a necessary or proportionate means of achieving that outcome. Indeed, as we have seen, it has the potential to promote regulatory uncertainty, as well as inhibiting productive and respectful co-operation on regulatory policy, which is what business organisations want to see.

In our view, common frameworks continue to offer a viable model for a better, more collaborative way of managing some of the regulatory challenges that Brexit has thrown up. However, the system is under strain, as the work of the frameworks can be undermined by the internal market act.

The UK Government’s consultation document proposes making frameworks the key mechanism for managing regulatory co-operation. The Scottish Government agrees. However, the UK Government has provided no information on how that is to be achieved or how the threat that the act poses to the operation of the common frameworks system is to be addressed.

The internal market act was imposed on this Parliament—against its will and without its consent—by the previous UK Government. It must be repealed in line with the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. That should be followed by substantive engagement on progress towards a sustainable, agreed alternative.

I look forward to discussing those issues and other areas that are of interest to the committee, and I welcome your questions.

Well, that opens up a very long conversation for the committee and for the academics in this area.

Let us go back, for a moment, to the example of minimum unit pricing on alcohol. At that time, the decision to introduce minimum unit pricing was opposed by the Scotch Whisky Association. It argued that the introduction of minimum unit pricing on alcohol was unnecessary and ran counter to the interests of the industry. I speak as a great supporter of the Scotch whisky industry; on that question, however, I think that the association was wrong. Why? Because there was a view at the time—and I agree—that there was a public health necessity to find a range of interventions, including minimum unit pricing, to deal with excessive, or harmful, alcohol consumption.

It was argued then that one person’s necessary public health intervention is another person’s unnecessary intervention in the free and unfettered working of the market. I say that to illustrate that there will always be a tension between those who wish for no intervention and those who can understand that there are reasons why there should, for different policy outcomes, be interventions. One person’s safeguard is another person’s red tape—the argument will go on forever.

We are always trying to find the balance. That is why I am suggesting to Mr Bibby that it is not a simple issue that I can give a simple answer to.

As custodians of how devolution should operate in its current guise, we have been charged with responsibility for a range of devolved policy areas. It may well be that this Government or future Governments will seek to make decisions on the grounds of public health or the environment—among other things—that some people in the private sector might see as being disadvantageous to them. Should we always try to strike a balance? Yes—of course there has to be a balance. That is the point that I keep making about maintaining proportionality and balance while recognising that the point of devolution is being able to make policy that is different.

Sorry, just to update the record for the committee, I am reading that

“it is the clear view of NFU Scotland that the principles now embedded in the UK Internal Market Act (IMA) 2020 pose a significant threat to the development of Common Frameworks and to devolved policy.”

That evidence was provided by NFU Scotland, and I agree with it. I rest my case that there is a way of approaching the single market—we are all agreed that we want it to work as well as possible and to provide certainty for business—but the internal market act should not play a part in that.

As we have already discussed at committee and in debates in the chamber, it is important to understand that common frameworks were created as the solution to the challenge in the first instance but were never allowed to become the primary working vehicle to deal with the challenge. Instead, the internal market act—the Trojan horse that has been driven into the devolution settlement—was introduced. It eclipsed what the common frameworks were designed to do and held back their development as the agreed, preferred way of managing the single market in the United Kingdom.

Members of the committee—although perhaps not all of them—have previously heard me give an example of that situation. I told colleagues about what happened shortly after I took up office, when I was having discussions with the UK Cabinet Office. The then Cabinet Office minister was Chloe Smith, and there was an encouragement that we should speak with one another about common frameworks because things were not progressing. We all know the role that the Scotland Office played at that time—it was all about the internal market act and muzzling devolution. Chloe Smith and I agreed on a number of points: common frameworks were there to serve a purpose; we were both committed to making them work; we did not understand why they had not progressed as they might; we committed that they should; and we would come back within a matter of weeks to identify whether our officials had been able to make progress. The answer to that was yes, and that is exactly what happened.

Therefore, I reflect on my personal experience in office that, where good will exists, the common frameworks are able to work if they are understood and treated in the way and spirit in which they were created.

The UK Government’s consultation document proposes making frameworks the key mechanism for managing regulatory co-operation. That is fine in so far as it goes, except for the fact that the internal market act will remain in place and can be used in ways that will undermine that. If one is saying that one wishes to have a reset with devolved Governments and Parliaments, and the legislatures in Scotland and Wales have agreed a position on that, I find it utterly extraordinary that the UK Government would not even consult on the position that its colleagues in those Parliaments had voted for. I do not understand it.

That is why we have provided the paper to outline our position. I wish the common frameworks well, and we will try to make them work, but that does not resolve the issue of the internal market act remaining in place, and the excuses for its doing so are fatuous. There is absolutely no requirement for the act to remain. I encourage the UK Government to embrace the common frameworks and repeal the internal market act in line with the position of this Government, this Parliament, the Welsh Government and the Senedd.

Absolutely—just so. That is part of the problem, and it should outrage democratically elected parliamentarians in this place that people who are not elected to deal with these matters can make such opaque decisions and run roughshod over the democratically elected representatives of this country. The issue is actually not that complicated. We have in place a system that we have agreed that we wish to make work. Why do we not just get on and do that, and bin that which we have commonly agreed is not fit for purpose?