Extract from Scottish
Questions: Devolution Settlement
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the
operation of the devolution settlement.
(Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch
and Strathspey) (SNP)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the
operation of the devolution settlement.
(Dundee West) (SNP)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the
operation of the devolution settlement.
The Secretary of State for Scotland ( ): I take this opportunity to
congratulate on becoming Scotland’s new
First Minister. I look forward to working with him. I heard him
say that he wanted to put the independence drive into “fifth
gear”; I would gently remind him that most Scots actually want
him to put it into reverse and to work with the United Kingdom to
tackle the issues that really matter to them, such as cost of
living pressures and growing our economy.
The devolution settlement gives Scotland the best of both worlds.
Scotland benefits from the wide influence and economic strength
of the UK, while also enjoying considerable devolved powers in
vital areas such as health, education and justice to tailor
policies to meet the needs of people in Scotland.
: In his response to the hon.
Member for Blaydon () on 22 February, the Secretary
of State claimed that the Scottish Government had not asked for
an exemption from the UK Internal Market Act 2020 for the
Scottish Deposit
return scheme. The Scottish Government have since
published the timeline to show that that is incorrect and that
the proposal has been under detailed discussion within the
resources and waste common framework since last October, with the
final detailed case for exclusion presented on 13 February. In
the light of that, will he correct the record and apologise for
inadvertently misleading Parliament?
Mr Jack: This is an important point and has had a lot of airtime
in the media in Scotland. I can say to the hon. Lady that, while
officials and civil servants spoke to one another over a period
of time, the official request to Ministers came in the
inter-ministerial group meeting, which the Under-Secretary of
State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire,
Roxburgh and Selkirk () was at, on 6 March. That is
all minuted. It is a fact, it is on the record and there is no
question. The UK Government have published it. The official
request was on 6 March. I would also say that the Scottish
Government proceeded with a Deposit
return scheme that small businesses, consumers and
others are very concerned about. Even the chief executive of
Tesco, the UK’s largest retailer, said yesterday that it is not
the right scheme and it is not fit for purpose. They are
concerned about it and they are right to be concerned about it.
The Scottish Government asked for their UKIM exemption after they
put their scheme together. If I were building a house, I would
get planning permission and then build my house, not do it the
other way around.
: The Secretary of State knows
that the process for gaining an exemption to the United Kingdom
Internal Market Act is through developing the appropriate common
framework. He also stated that there had been no request by
letter from the Scottish Government, yet the Deputy First
Minister wrote to the UK Government on 31 January and even
received a positive reply on 10 February. Is the problem here
that the Secretary of State just has a very selective memory, or
is it that he is so busy preparing for his seat in the House of
Lords that his office does not bother keeping him in the loop any
more?
Mr Jack: Let us be absolutely clear about this: the letter the
hon. Gentleman refers to was a letter to the Chancellor about
value added tax treatment of the Deposit
return scheme. The letter mentioned that an
exemption request would be coming forward, but the official
request was made on 6 March—there is no question about that—and
the detailed arguments were laid out on 6 March at the
ministerial meeting.
: It is not going too well for
the Secretary of State, is it? Environmental charities across
these islands have written to him, calling on him not to block
the Scottish Deposit
return scheme. We know there are successful schemes
across many other countries, and the British Soft Drinks
Association, whose members include Coca-Cola and Irn-Bru maker
A.G. Barr, called for it to go ahead as planned. What on earth is
the future Baron von Jack thinking of when he ignores those calls
and threatens to block the scheme—particularly when his own
Government and other UK nations will follow Scotland’s lead and
introduce their own scheme from 2025?
Mr Jack: I am not sure that there has been much joined-up
thinking on the questions here. Again, I have suggested that
the Deposit
return scheme should be paused. I think a UK-wide
solution is right; I think recycling is absolutely right. But I
agree with the chief executive of Tesco, Britain’s largest
retailer, when he says that this is not the right scheme—it will
be inflationary. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, 12
bottles of Scottish water currently cost £1.59 in Aldi, but under
the scheme, that would become £3.99 or even higher if a price is
put on top. Although £2.40 of that could be reclaimed, the
consumer will also pay an extra cost that is put on by the
producer—producers have been clear about that.
We met Coca-Cola, which said that 2p on a can and 5p on a bottle
would be passed on to the consumer and could not be reclaimed.
There are higher figures from other companies, including one
small brewer that said it would have to add £1.40 to a bottle of
beer on top of the 20 pence. The scheme is inflationary and very
bad for the consumer’s shopping basket. That is why I think we
need to pause it and get a scheme that works for the whole United
Kingdom.
Cost of Living
(Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): It
is so good to see you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Deposit
return scheme that the Scottish Government plan to
introduce later this year will have a significant impact in costs
for brewers, pubs and distilleries? Whereas we strongly support
the objectives of the scheme, does he support the calls for the
Scottish Government to rethink the implementation in order to
reduce the ultimate costs to consumers?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (): My right hon. Friend makes a
very important point. The Scottish Government’s Deposit
return scheme does not work, and it is very
important we find a solution that works across all parts of the
United Kingdom. We should reflect on the comments of Tesco’s
chief executive yesterday, who said that the Scottish
Government’s Deposit
return scheme was not fit for purpose and risks
driving up prices, and that there should be a UK-wide scheme.
Extract from oral
answer (Lords) on Scotland: Meeting with New First
Minister
(Lab Co-op): I
will. I also send my congratulations to on taking over what I am
afraid he is going to find is a poisoned chalice. When the
Secretary of State meets the First Minister, will he say quite
clearly to him that, if he is genuine and sincere in wanting to
co-operate constructively with the UK Government, they should get
round the table and find an agreed way forward on gender reform
and container recycling that is applicable for the whole United
Kingdom? Those are my first two priorities—instead of expensive
legal action paid for by the UK taxpayer, which will benefit only
the lawyers and extreme separatists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office
() (Con): I thank the
noble Lord for that very succinct agenda item, and that is
exactly what is going to be addressed. The people of Scotland
have two Governments, the UK Government and the Scottish
Government, and there is very clear demarcation between the two
as to how to make lives better. We have some very good examples
of where we work very well together—in delivering freeports, city
deals and investment zones—but there are some areas where we are
in conflict, because we need the Scottish Government to recognise
the unitary nature of the United Kingdom. We have come out of
Europe and have a single market—they understand the single market
very well—in the UK. That means that certain things are done on a
unitary basis, whether it is that we drive on the left-hand side
of the road or keep the same currency. But we also want common
gender—we want to protect our trans community. People should not
be designated a male in one country and a female in another. On
trade that crosses borders, we do not want to have any borders
for our trade, so a Deposit
return scheme that results in English craft beer
manufacturers putting on their labels “Not for sale in Scotland”
is not exactly the way forward for the United Kingdom. I would
suggest that that would be the first topic on the agenda.
