I say very gently to Martin Whitfield, who talked wistfully in his speech about the need for cross-party co-operation: we had it. We agreed. The Scottish Labour Party agreed with the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Alba. We agreed by a clear majority in the Parliament that the IMA should be repealed. Sadly, it is the Scottish Labour Party that has given up on cross-party co-operation and it is Martin Whitfield who is prepared to accept the ruling out of his position, his party’s position, the Government’s position and the Parliament’s position. That is utterly beyond me.

This point is the most baffling thing of all. Every member of the Parliament knows that, if one is having a review, it is not difficult to consider the broadest range of options. Why did Martin Whitfield’s colleagues in Westminster, including Douglas Alexander, decide that they were going to rule out his position and his own party’s position? It is utterly baffling. It would have cost nothing to do that and they should have done it, but they deliberately chose not to do it. I am sorry—that is not a reset.

I believe that an alternative, workable system is easily achieved with political will and political imagination. We have the blueprint for a better system in the form of common frameworks. As has been noted, the UK Government itself proposed that common frameworks should be the principal means of managing regulatory divergence by agreement.

However, the UK Government has yet to set out how that would be achieved. The IMA applies automatically in nearly every case, with almost no exceptions. What scope is there for sensible, evidence-based engagement when the act renders such engagement meaningless? What incentive is there to agree approaches that ensure regulatory coherence while respecting devolution when the act can simply nullify the effect of a devolved law? [Interruption.]

We need more than vague words. We need a recognition that the internal market act is utterly discredited and a commitment to co-design a new workable replacement.

The previous UK Government used Brexit—which was rejected by the people of Scotland—to launch a sustained and systematic attack on the principle and purpose of devolution. The IMA is the most toxic element of that legacy and it must be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I have said that I am not giving way at this stage. I have a lot to get through.

Yes, the election of a new UK Government last July on a manifesto commitment to reset relations after the deep damage done to devolution by the previous Government offered grounds for hope. However, the evidence so far suggests that either the new UK Government does not grasp the damage that the internal market act has done and is doing, or it simply is not interested.

Rachael Hamilton rose—

To unilaterally rule out repeal of the act, given the position of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the position of the Scottish Labour Party, the position of the Welsh Government, the position of the Welsh Parliament and the position of the Welsh Labour Party, is totally unacceptable. The new UK Government must think again. It must commit to working with other Governments of the UK to deliver a better, workable and agreed alternative to the discredited and the unworkable internal market act.

I will briefly address the points raised by members, including Stephen Kerr and Rachael Hamilton. The first point is that there is a misapprehension among some members of this Parliament, particularly those on the Conservative benches, who do not seem to understand that there are things known as common frameworks. Those are the basis of dealing with internal market issues. Common frameworks were introduced before the internal market act but they have never been allowed to work properly. That is why the internal market act is utterly and totally superfluous and dangerous.

Neil Bibby’s Alice through the looking-glass logic welcomes a UK Labour Party review that rejects the position of his party in this Parliament. It is utterly baffling.

Lorna Slater reminded members of how the internal market act has been used to overrule the Scottish Parliament without evidence, without justification and without democratic accountability.

Willie Rennie was absolutely right to say that the IMA should be repealed. It is strange, then, that the UK Government ruled that out, despite that being the position of the Scottish Labour Party and MSPs across that side of the chamber. Incidentally, that is the position of five out of the six political parties in this Parliament.

George Adam gave us a powerful reminder of the dangers of the internal market act, whereas Jackson Carlaw, in his usual interesting and enjoyable way, lamented about the workings of devolution. Perhaps, on reflection, he might also acknowledge that the internal market act drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement.

Kenneth Gibson tutored those of us who do not appreciate the limits of devolution and those who choose to use the rhetoric of Scotland having one of the strongest devolved Parliaments in the world. One would no doubt fail one’s higher modern studies course if one were to write such a thing.

Alex Rowley thinks that today’s debate is depressing, but he apparently does not find it depressing that his party’s position in the Scottish Parliament is being blocked by his own party at Westminster. I found that particularly baffling.

Emma Roddick was right to point out that the IMA has impacts across the powers of devolution. It impacts on all the issues that Alex Rowley and others raised as being important.

Foysol Choudhury seemed content with the wording of a UK consultation that rules out his own position on IMA repeal. He wanted to hear a Scottish Government contribution to the consultation. It is simple: repeal the internal market act. That is the position of the Parliament and it was the position of his party. It is beyond me why he and the rest of his colleagues have done a U-turn.

Foysol Choudhury was followed by Martin Whitfield, who made reference to a reset. I agree that a reset would be a tremendously good thing. However, I find it odd that his party thinks that a reset in the relationship can be brought about by the UK Government ignoring his position and the position of members on his front bench, and by his colleague, the representative for East Lothian in the UK Parliament, ignoring him on a matter such as this.

I am happy to give way to the member so that he can explain why he has U-turned on his own position.

Will Willie Rennie give way?

Before today’s debate, I wondered to myself whether we might finally hear any plausible justification for the internal market act. More than four years after it was imposed by the previous UK Government, without the consent of any devolved legislature, I wondered whether someone might be able to set out the reasons why it was necessary. Of course, we have heard no such arguments, because there are no good reasons for the internal market act. It remains utterly indefensible. No one seriously believes that the act is necessary to protect intra-UK trade and Scottish jobs—that is a total nonsense. It is entirely possible to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to trade and to have a system of workable, proportionate regulatory co-operation while, at the same time, respecting devolution and the powers of this Parliament.

The internal market act was always driven by political calculation—it was not a policy necessity. Despite the people of Scotland rejecting Brexit, the previous UK Government used it as a pretext to attack devolution and this Parliament’s powers. It tried to pretend that the act simply replaced European Union rules. That is untrue. The European single market provides a well-functioning, balanced, proportionate and rules-based system of market oversight.

Not at the moment.

The internal market act introduced an arbitrary, opaque and unaccountable regime in which laws passed by a democratically elected legislature can be nullified on a whim and in which decisions on matters of profound importance to the people of Scotland can be set aside at the discretion of an unaccountable minister in London.

First, I am delighted that a number of organisations in Dumfries and Galloway will receive awards, including four that have not previously received core funding from Creative Scotland.

Emma Harper is absolutely correct to suggest that we should recognise the impact of festivals beyond the central belt, which is why, separately from multiyear funding, we are more than doubling support for the festivals expo fund and expanding its reach beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is an example of how the strategic partnership for Scotland’s festivals will provide further opportunities to explore how best to support festivals in rural areas.

I assure Clare Adamson that I and my officials have had regular meetings with Creative Scotland. The process has been run by Creative Scotland, which is an arms-length organisation. As the sponsoring organisation that funds Creative Scotland, we have the responsibility to satisfy ourselves about the process, and I am satisfied. I encourage members and people who are watching the proceedings that, if they want to have a better understanding of the results, they should visit the Creative Scotland website and download the list of all the successful applicants. At this stage, I congratulate every one of them.