Chamber and committees

I am interested in the member’s view of history. Will he confirm that the SNP campaigned for there to be a Scottish Parliament and, contrary to what he has just insinuated, his party campaigned for there not to be one?

Will the member give way?

I would not want to oversing the praises of political consensus, but it is worth recalling for a moment that there used to be agreement in the Parliament about one thing, at least. Whatever our differing views about the eventual destination of the devolution process or, indeed, the UK Internal Market Act 2020, we were all once signed up to the assumption that it was vital that the Parliament should be able to act freely in the areas for which it had devolved responsibility. How deep does that consensus go today in some quarters of the chamber? As someone who spent his youth campaigning for Scotland to become a parliamentary democracy, I feel unsure about that.

We have heard the usual cries from the usual benches asking why Parliament is, supposedly, wasting valuable debating time on constitutional matters rather than looking at Scotland’s present impossible budget choices on public services. Let me give two brief responses to those objections.

First, developed democracies invariably have written constitutions—pace New Zealand. In all those countries, questions about constitutional principle are generally considered very relevant. I am unsure why those questions would be uniquely inapplicable in Scotland.

The second response is that we quite rightly spend most of our time in Parliament looking at how Scotland’s money is spent. From time to time, however, it is also important that we ask about the rules of that political game. I appreciate that that might throw up some difficult questions, such as why the total size of our budget is directed from another place or why the powers that we have to borrow or to alter tax are quite so constrained by the UK Government.

The relevant point is that, since the Brexit referendum of 2016, a whole range of new mechanisms has been invented by the UK Government to hem in what the Scottish Parliament does. Those mechanisms were largely undreamt of beyond the realms of hypothesis when the Parliament was re-established in 1999. I suppose that the changes since 2016 simply go to show the occasionally lauded flexibility of political life in a country without a written constitution.

A few of the developments that we have seen, which others have mentioned, are: the unprecedented use of section 35 powers to veto a bill passed by the Parliament, effectively intercepting it in the post on its way to the King’s desk; the Sewel convention—the previously unquestioned wisdom that the UK Parliament would never normally legislate in devolved areas without the Scottish Parliament’s consent—has now been breached on such a routine basis that it is doubtful whether it can still be said to exist; the gradual tendency of the UK Government to find new ways to spend bits of what should be the Scottish Parliament’s budget on our behalf on things on which it thinks they should be spent; the Subsidy Control Act 2022, with all the constraints that it imposes on devolved policy making; and, of course, the denial of the democratic and arithmetical reality that a majority of members of the Scottish Parliament were elected on a mandate to hold an independence referendum.

That is not to mention, of course, the wider hostile UK political environment, which seems to see everything that goes on here in the rebel province as a potential threat. At least one recent UK Prime Minister vowed to ignore the Scottish Parliament completely during her term of office, and she was, indeed, true to her word on that.

The motion focuses attention on just one of the new constraints put on the Scottish Parliament by the UK—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. To take one example, that act gives a UK Government minister the power to subject Scotland’s NHS to what it considers to be market access principles. It means that any future legislation in Scotland to ban single-use plastics, or any measures to tackle obesity or alcohol abuse, for example, could be rendered ineffective if a policy difference was created with the rest of the UK.

As I recall, policy differences, where they were felt to be needed, were one of the very reasons why the Scottish Parliament was re-established. I certainly cannot imagine anybody anticipating, back in 1999, a scenario in which the Scottish Parliament asked—as it is presently likely to have to ask—for the UK Government’s blessing before we altered the law on rat traps. That is particularly surprising, given that changing that area of law does not involve our touching on any areas of law reserved to Westminster. Changing the law on rat traps leaves nuclear weapons, the date of Easter, the British Antarctic Territory and outer space all safely untouched by the Scottish Parliament.

It is not just the usual pro-independence suspects who warn about all the incursions on this Parliament’s powers. As we have heard from other members, such warnings come from elsewhere—not least from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and from Mark Drakeford, who is Wales’s Labour First Minister. Let us unite as a Parliament to recognise such attacks for what they are and recognise the UK Internal Market Act 2020 for what it is.

Members are expected to address the motion before them. Presiding Officer, do you have any guidance on when the member intends to come round to addressing the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

Will the member give way?

Will the member take an intervention?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

What has this got to do with the debate?

With an interconnector due to be in place for 2030, the Western Isles are set to host significant renewables developments over the next decade. Considering the fact that my constituency has the highest level of fuel poverty, does the minister agree that a just transition must mean that those communities see substantial benefits from hosting such developments?

Screen Machine is a much-cherished service, as we have heard, for people who would otherwise have to travel hundreds of miles to get to a static cinema. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that that popular and well-used cultural service must be able to access the relevant support to commission a new greener vehicle that will allow it to visit our rural and island communities?