The Cabinet Secretary for
Constitution, External Affairs and Culture ():...The report
argues that there is consensus among the UK and devolved
Governments that common frameworks provide appropriate mechanisms
for managing regulatory divergence across the UK. Although I
acknowledge that the UK Government remains formally committed to
the development and implementation of common frameworks, I
respectfully challenge the committee on one point. If the UK
Government shares the view that frameworks offer the right
mechanism for managing post-EU exit regulatory divergence in the
UK, why on earth did it impose the United Kingdom Internal Market
Act 2020 on this Parliament? The act is incompatible with the
principles and approaches of common frameworks, as it replaces
respect for devolution and progress by agreement with unilateral
decision making and the undermining of devolution by strength.
Scotland’s Deposit return
scheme is the clearest example that we have seen of how
work on the common frameworks has been undermined...
Kate Forbes (Skye,
Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP):...On the United
Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, he () said:
“I would dispute the use of the Internal Market Act for these
purposes.”
In that case, he was referring to Scotland’s Deposit return
scheme. He added:
“if they were to invoke it, there will be ... serious questions
for the UK Government.”
John Swinney (Perthshire
North) (SNP):...If we need evidence of what that
undermining of the devolution settlement looks like, it looks
like the disregarding—the rendering as meaningless—of the Sewel
convention, given the number of times that it has been breached
since 2018. If Mr Greene thinks that the Scottish Parliament
would be able, without interference from the United Kingdom
Internal Market Act 2020 and the UK Government, to do all that he
asked it to do, he is living in fantasy land. All that we need to
look to is the deposit—[Interruption.] Mr Greene has shouted out
to me that we have not even tried. We have tried things such as
the Deposit return
scheme. For heaven’s sake, glass recycling is such a
constitutional threat that we cannot be allowed to get on with it
because of its threat to the internal market act. That act is
being used to erode the Parliament’s ability and confidence to
legislate in areas of its devolved competence. As a former
minister, I can imagine what the advice to current ministers
about the ability to confidently legislate will be like. Various
caveats will be put in by civil servants for good reason—because
of the precedent that has been set by the malicious actions of
the Secretary of State for Scotland in undermining the Deposit return
scheme.
This is when I get to people such as Mr Rowley. Mr Rowley knows
that I hold him in the highest personal regard and admiration.
However, I am very disappointed by his speech today. He tried to
take the approach to the debate,
which flummoxes me entirely, in trying to equate the
determination of the Scottish Government to act within its
legislative competence with the right of the Secretary of State
for Scotland to act on a malicious and unfounded basis in eroding
the Deposit return
scheme. I cannot fathom that. I cannot see how he can
equate those two actions...
Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland
and Fife) (Green):...I return to the issue of the
Deposit return
schemes that John Swinney raised and the role of the
United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. The Scottish
DRS is rightly being scrutinised by our Net
Zero, Energy and Transport Committee at the moment, but the
refusal of any UK Government minister to engage with that
committee makes it almost impossible to understand where the
scheme can go next in Scotland. In theory, Deposit return
schemes in Scotland and Wales can proceed without glass;
an exemption has been granted for that under the 2020 act.
However, the requirement for devolved schemes to match the rules
of an English DRS that does not even exist has
put an indefinite block on any Scottish scheme...
Maurice Golden (North East
Scotland) (Con):...Although it is right to hear
about and acknowledge the genuine challenges that the devolution
settlement faces, we have heard—over and over again, throughout
the afternoon—the usual attempts from members to sow division and
use the issue for political grandstanding. described Brexit as an
“assault” and blamed the failed Deposit return
scheme on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020,
rather than accepting responsibility for a series of hapless
blunders by the Scottish Government. The matter was equally
mischaracterised by John Swinney, who used the terms “attack” and
“malicious”. went one better, talking of a
“relentless attack”. described that as
“tired and divisive politics” and presented his federal vision
for democracy in the United Kingdom...
For context, OPEN HERE
