Chamber and committees

I wonder whether Christine Grahame agrees that Stephen Kerr, by suggesting that the mere process involving whether something is devolved or reserved should not prevent a Government from taking action, has made a case that this Parliament and this Government should be able to do whatever it likes on reserved matters.

If the Government concludes that the balance of risks and benefits is positive, I would certainly welcome the Commonwealth games coming to Glasgow. Although it would not be a replica of 2014, it would still be a major event for the city, and we would need to mitigate any unintended consequences. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary work with Glasgow City Council to ensure that there is rapid use of the visitor levy powers to ensure that some of the money that could be generated from the related economic activity would be invested back in social purposes?

Will he also ensure that, if the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Bill are not yet in force, the Government considers use of temporary rent control measures in the region to prevent price gouging, which we have seen during the periods of some major sporting events?

I thank Kenny Gibson for bringing this debate to Parliament and congratulate him on doing so. I was very happy to put my name to the motion.

The stated purpose of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 needs to be recognised, and I think that ensuring continued trade and preventing the creation of unnecessary trade barriers is a legitimate purpose. I suspect that most of us would agree with that basic purpose. In fact, it is worth acknowledging that, whether we believe in a well-regulated market that is made to operate in the public interest or a deregulated free market—wherever we sit on that left-to-right spectrum—there is a case for having a large single market between countries without trade barriers. I believe in that as an objective.

However, there is a very deep irony in the fact that the act was brought about by the party that gave us Brexit—the party that took us out of such a large international single-market arrangement.

I have just rejoined the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. I did not take part in the committee’s inquiry into the trade barriers that have emerged post-Brexit, but we looked at its report at my first meeting back. What struck me was that not a single bit of evidence that the committee had taken suggested anything other than that significant trade barriers had emerged, and that not a single politician on the committee—from any political party—tried to deny the fact that Brexit has created trade barriers. The Conservatives must be the first right-wing party that derides anyone who criticises capitalism but then joyfully and gleefully creates new trade barriers where they do not need to exist. They pretended that they did not believe in trade barriers but then introduced legislation to prevent them.

It is worth acknowledging that the European Union has a much wider international, multinational single market. It has mechanisms to prevent unnecessary trade barriers from being created, which it put in place without the need to take the draconian powers that the then UK Government took in the 2020 act.

Other members have mentioned the political parties—Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and the Greens—that voted against the legislation in the UK Parliament and against giving legislative consent in this Parliament. Therefore, it is clear that the defence of the 2020 act is not the mainstream position in our political landscape and that opposition to that legislation is the mainstream position.

It is not that the 2020 act could be used to constrain devolved Parliaments rather than to ensure co-operation, dialogue and mutual agreement—it has been used to do that. It is clear that the then UK Government did not care about gaining legislative consent to interference in devolved powers. The act allows the UK Government to unilaterally override devolved decisions on devolved competencies without any notice.

I will mention the then UK Government’s abuse of its power in relation to the deposit return scheme. For years, that Government had a policy commitment to introduce a deposit return scheme in England. In fact, it was going to consult on it five years before the end stages of Scotland’s attempt to get a deposit return scheme working. Five years on from that commitment, there was no detail in the UK Government’s policy. It had not developed its policy, legislation or regulations; it had not done anything to advance that agenda. From the point of view of the then UK Government, the main premise for undermining Scotland’s scheme was the need for a UK-wide approach, yet years after making the commitment to introduce such a scheme, there was no detail on what exactly Scotland was supposed to align with. That was an abuse of power: the then UK Government said that we had to align with a UK approach while utterly refusing to say what that approach was.

It is clear from all that, and it was clear in the Scottish Government’s response to the then UK Government, that the latter would not hesitate to use the 2020 act to undermine, override and rewrite devolved legislation, disregarding—not seeking—a four-nation approach.

This is about more than just the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We have seen the abuse of power in the 2020 act, the abuse of power in the use of the section 35 order in the Scotland Act 1998 and the willingness of a UK Government to persistently and routinely ignore decisions on legislative consent motions. With those three elements combined, we no longer have the devolution settlement that we voted for back in 1998. If the UK Labour Government is at all serious about wanting a reset—whatever that means—of the relationship between the Governments, it must end all three forms of abuse of power.

We have heard a few familiar tunes this afternoon. From the Conservatives, the familiar tune that we need to be spending much more on everything but raising much less tax was no great surprise.

The Labour Party used to recognise the context of austerity being imposed by a Tory UK Government, but now that a Labour UK Government is imposing Tory fiscal rules, that context seems to be a bit less relevant somehow. Its tune might be changing a little, but not necessarily for the better.

As for the SNP, the First Minister told us that he wants to govern harder and stronger. I am not quite sure what that means, but it certainly should not mean abandoning the most marginalised people in our society. I am afraid that an element of that has started to creep into the programme for government—and not only in some of its recent decisions, such as the cutting of provision of free bus travel for asylum seekers. That policy costs such a small amount of money, but it has a massive benefit for the individuals who are affected by it.

It is also now entirely unclear what the Government’s position on free school meals will be. It would be helpful if the Government could respond on that, in closing.

It now appears that there are threats to water down rent controls. I am quite sure that the landlord lobby is working overtime to ensure that profiteering in the private rented sector can continue, but it is essential that the Government and the Parliament stand up for tenants’ rights if amendments seek to water down the provision.

I am pleased that the Creative Scotland cuts have been reversed, but the huge anxiety that was created during that period was entirely avoidable.

On the decision to abandon the commitment to legislate in Scotland on conversion practices—to which my colleague referred—I see that the Equality Network has already responded. It said:

“These benefits do not make up for the downsides of waiting for a Westminster Bill—namely, ScotGov losing control of the Bill’s content and timeline for progress.”

The Deputy First Minister may be aware of the Glasgow-based company Seapeak, which has been the subject of reports by investigative journalists and has continued to run vessels trading in Russian liquefied natural gas. The fact that a firm based in Glasgow is continuing to prop up the Putin regime by trading in fossil fuels regardless of either the invasion of Ukraine or the climate emergency will shock and disgust many people. However, no action is currently being taken to shut down that extraordinarily unethical business.

Will the Deputy First Minister write to the new Foreign Secretary highlighting this scandal and urging the UK Government to ensure that firms that are profiteering from a business that fuels climate change and helps to fund Putin’s illegal war are shut down?

As an individual, the cabinet secretary is fully committed to the principle, but the Government needs to be fully committed to the principle and to the reality of introducing the bill to the Scottish Parliament and letting us legislate on it.

I will move on and talk about some of the other things that are not in the programme for government. A human rights bill is not in there, and that has also been criticised by some people outside the chamber. It causes us to lose the opportunity to legislate for the right to a healthy environment. Perhaps the Government decided that legislating for the right to a healthy environment at the same time as raiding the nature restoration fund would have lacked credibility. I remind Rachael Hamilton, who is such a fan of it, that the nature restoration fund was created by the Greens as a result of the Bute house agreement, which she is also obsessed with.

As for the climate change bill, we know that a new one will be necessary. There needs to be a moment of radical honesty of Scotland acknowledging that we are years behind where we should be on emissions reduction because there has not been the political will to change transport policy, the way that we heat our buildings, the way that we use land or the kind of agriculture that we subsidise. If a new bill is going to be tolerable and supportable, it will have to be in the context that there will be an acceleration of immediate action and not waiting until after carbon budgets are set after advice is taken and after a new climate plan is produced. That would leave paralysis for most of the rest of this parliamentary session, if not longer. If a new climate change bill is to seek political support from this part of the chamber, it will need to be in the context of a radical acceleration of climate action in the short term.

Let me just say that there have, since the SNP moved, by choice, into minority Government, been warning signs that it seems to be determined to abandon the trust of the Scots who wanted a progressive and equal Scotland—a Scotland that is willing to redistribute wealth in order to tackle austerity and that is willing to invest in bold and urgent climate action. As my colleague Lorna Slater said, there are still 18 months in which to prove those fears wrong and to commit to the bold action that is necessary. Even if the SNP abandons that project, the Greens certainly will not.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to implement the policy announced in March 2022 in regard to companies maintaining trade links with Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. (S6O-03656)

On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I, too, offer a warm welcome back to Richard Lochhead. We are very pleased to see him recovering well.

I thank the First Minister for his statement, which properly reflected the depth of compassion for those affected by the violence in Southport and the horrific murders, and the depth of anger at those who have opportunistically capitalised on that horrific event to pursue their toxic ideology.

However, although I welcome a lot of what was in the First Minister’s statement, I suggest that two things were missing from it. First, it is not only social media that is responsible for the promotion and proliferation of hatred and prejudice against immigrants, asylum seekers and Muslims. Those attitudes have also been deliberately cultivated by swathes of the UK mainstream media and by successive UK Governments. Politicians from a number of different parties are culpable for that.

Secondly, it is when social and community cohesion is already weakened that the far right finds its opportunity.

Does the First Minister agree that, if more austerity is coming our way, we have a responsibility to ensure that the burden falls on the wealthiest, not on our communities, on the investment that they need or on the public services that they need, if we want to have a chance of maintaining the cohesion of the communities that he describes?

In the short term, it is essential that the cabinet secretary finds a solution to the closure of the open fund, which is causing great concern to all our constituents. For the longer term, I want to come with positive solutions. We have already persuaded Parliament to pass legislation to give councils the power to introduce a visitor levy. We are now making the case for a stadium levy on large profitable events—again, that is a way of raising revenue to fund culture and the arts. Does the cabinet secretary agree that empowering local government to raise revenue from those who make significant profits is the most effective way that we can find to solve the problem and generate the funds that are needed?

That is something that the Greens have advocated for persistently, and we continue to do so.

The International Energy Agency has stated:

“For the moment the oil and gas industry as a whole is a marginal force in the world’s transition to a clean energy system.”

In fact, that industry accounts for

“only 1% of total clean energy investment globally.”

It is no longer just the Greens and the climate movement who are calling out the fossil fuel industry for its dishonesty and for the harm that it continues to do. As well as the International Energy Agency, the secretary general of the United Nations and a host of other authoritative global voices have been clear.

As for a new climate bill here in Scotland, I have to say that, if it is seen as just a technical fix to get the Government out of a legal hole, I fear that the second half of this journey will be just as sluggish as the first, and we will fail. Instead, the bill must be seen as a pivotal moment, locking in the bold policy changes that are needed to get us back on track and get to net zero by 2045. We still have time, but only just.

I move amendment S6M-13759.1, to insert after “transition”:

“recognises that this is currently not happening at the pace required by climate science, and that Scotland’s emission cuts since targets were first set have been inadequate; believes that significant policy change is required to achieve emission cuts, especially in transport, land use and heating; agrees with the UN Secretary General’s description of fossil fuel companies as 'the godfathers of climate chaos'; further agrees that investment in new fossil fuel production and infrastructure cannot be justified”.