Chamber and committees

Before the cabinet secretary develops his argument, I wonder whether I could take him back to his opening argument about the actions of the public in Scotland in supporting the devolved settlement in the referendum of 1997. We risk losing sight of the significance of the democratic consent that was given to the settlement in 1997, which in many ways was reinforced—much against my wishes—in the referendum in 2014. I commend the committee members for what they have said in the report about the attack that has been made on devolution, and I point out that at no stage has the consent of the public in Scotland been sought for those changes. Is the cabinet secretary concerned about the implications of that for the democratic consent of the public in Scotland that was given in 1997, which has been disregarded in the period since the referendum in 2016?

I begin by commending the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee on an outstanding report, which is a seminal moment for this Parliament and this parliamentary session for two reasons. First, the convener has managed to draw together shades of opinion right across the parliamentary spectrum in a report that unanimously concludes that, as a consequence of Brexit, the powers of this Parliament have been undermined by the actions and response of the UK Government. I do not say that to be provocative—I say it to recognise and admire the strength of conclusion that has been arrived at by the thinking and contribution of members from across the political spectrum.

The second reason that it is a seminal moment is that we are beginning to confront the democratic difficulty that Scotland now finds itself in. In 1997, the devolution referendum resulted in the overwhelming consent—the utterly gobsmacking level of consent—of the people of Scotland to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Attracting that degree of consent from the public in Scotland was an absolute triumph for the founders and architects of devolution.

Arguably, as I said in my intervention on Mr Bibby earlier, the independence referendum in 2014 indicated, much to my concern and distress, that people in Scotland at that stage did not want Scotland to be independent. I think that it is a reasonable conclusion to draw that they reaffirmed their support for devolution.

Along came the Brexit referendum in 2016. The Scottish people voted decisively against Brexit, but Brexit was forced down their throats by a Conservative Government that was determined to pursue the approach that it has taken. However, in so doing, it has undermined the democratic consent that was given by the people of Scotland in 1997—nobody has addressed that argument yet. Fundamentally, the people of Scotland have had the settlement that they voted for comprehensively and overwhelmingly in 1997 undermined by a Conservative Government that is pursuing the implementation of Brexit, which people in Scotland did not vote for. That has had implications for devolution that people in Scotland never consented to.

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 Alex Cole-Hamilton 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.

The debate prompts a big question, which my colleague Kate Forbes has put to Parliament today. What do we do about this? Do we return to our tribal backgrounds and criticise people—maybe I have just spent the past four and a half minutes doing exactly that—or do we step forward as a united Parliament, as the committee has done under the leadership of my colleague Clare Adamson, and say that this is the moment when we all have to say that the Parliament is in jeopardy and is under threat and that we have to realise the scale of that threat and do something about it together without trading our different views? If that requires me to change my behaviour, I will do so for the occasion. We have to recognise that the Parliament’s powers, which our people voted for decisively in 1997, are being eroded in front of our eyes.

If a different Government occupied the front bench, it would still struggle with the issues that I am raising because of the internal market act and what has been done to undermine devolution by the back door. The people of Scotland have not been asked. The question for this afternoon is: are we prepared to rise above that and defend our Parliament and the democratic decision of the people of Scotland in 1997?

Will Mr Whitfield make it clear whether the Labour Party will, if it is returned to government in 2024, abolish the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Mr Bibby made the important point that two additional tranches of powers have been allocated to this Parliament. I would contend—I think that Mr Bibby would agree—that that was a result of democratic pressure within Scotland to acquire those powers, as was the 1997 referendum. Does he think that it is a serious democratic issue and problem for Scotland that those powers have been eroded in the aftermath of Brexit and that the people of Scotland have not been asked about that?

I am pleased that the minister has made the point about the view of the Welsh Government. If we are to get to a position of unanimity, based on what the convener and her committee have provided as foundations, the position of the Welsh Government reduces the tension in the debate, because it makes it clear that, independently, a Labour Administration in Wales has come to the same conclusions as the Scottish Government and the committee about the impact on devolution. Is that not a strong foundation on which we can build some unity?

I am enjoying Clare Adamson’s thoughtful and substantial speech. Has the committee considered what the respective roles of the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments should be in settling the contents of common frameworks? It strikes me that, without there being appropriate opportunities for the devolved Governments to be able to protect the rights of the devolved settlements from the United Kingdom Government, which, ultimately, as we have found out through the use of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, has a final say over many aspects of the constitutional exercise of authority, and unless that protection is given to devolved Governments, the common frameworks will be as meaningless in the future as they are today.

Deputy Chief Constable, could I pursue that a little further? Am I right to understand from your comments in response to Katy Clark’s question that your officers will go with the grain of the Lord Advocate’s guidance but keep a watchful eye out for anything that is not consistent with it? I will spit it out: I take it that, given the Lord Advocate’s position, Police Scotland will give the proposal a fair wind?

Part of what underpins the question that Katy Clark puts, which is my view as well, is that we understand, accept and do not in any way question the proper role of the police in upholding the rule of law, but that must, on this issue, be done in a manner that gives the policy intent of the proposal the maximum opportunity to thrive, if that is possible.

In essence, you have covered the internal changes that Police Scotland can make to the operating model. I would like to explore that a bit further. In some circumstances, those changes will relate to working practices and approaches to the management of the estate. Am I right in concluding that there is, within the design of that model, a recognition that we are living in a society that has, relatively speaking historically, a very low level of crime? I accept that that has to be continually suppressed and prevented, but the nature, level and character of crime, with the best predictions that we can make about the contents of the approach, should inform the construction of the police force that we require for the future.