Hansard

I ask Mr Swinney to forgive me, as I will overrun if I take an intervention at this stage.

The committee’s report states:

“It is essential that we have the opportunity to hear from the UK Minister for Intergovernmental Relations to discuss the findings of this report”.

To date, the committee has received no response, despite the urgency of its request and an indication of the importance with which the matter is viewed in Whitehall.

The report also raises concerns about the rapid growth in the use of delegated powers, which allows the UK Government to legislate in devolved areas. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 is just one example of that. As the committee notes, that is a recipe for confusion, a lack of transparency and a blurring of the lines of accountability.

We recognise the merit in the committee’s recommendations regarding new intergovernmental agreements on how the use of delegated powers should work, particularly in their recognition of

“the constitutional principle that devolved Ministers are accountable to their respective legislatures for the use of powers within devolved competence”

and the fact that the

“Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within devolved competence.”

Those principles are fundamental to the effective operation of the devolution settlement. On one level, they are so self-evident that they should not require further explanation.

As I have noted, the Scottish Government sees merit in the recommendation that agreement be reached on the use of delegated powers by UK ministers in devolved areas. However, new or revised rules, structures and agreements can be fully effective only if all parties are committed to following them. That means following the rules consistently, not just when it suits. It means respecting the important principles of collaborative working that were agreed by all four Governments as part of the review of intergovernmental relations. It means respecting the Scottish Parliament and having a shared interest in making the devolution settlement operate as intended, in the way that the people of Scotland voted for decisively in 1997.

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.

Common frameworks and the principle of respect for devolution and the powers of the Parliament that underpin them could be the basis for a respectful and co-operative approach to devolved regulatory policy. Common frameworks still offer an alternative to the unworkable centralisation, rigidity and disregard for devolution that are embodied by the 2020 act, but only if all parties are prepared to adhere to the rules. It is hard to see—at least at present—how the committee’s recommendation of a new common frameworks memorandum of understanding would operate if some actors are not prepared to play by the agreed rules.

The committee is correct in noting that all of that means that the Scottish Parliament faces an unprecedented set of challenges in performing its vital scrutiny role. The challenge of adapting to EU exit was always going to be vast in scale and complex, as, equally, were the demands on Scotland’s Parliament. However, where we are today is the result of choices. It did not have to be like this. It was a choice to proceed with the folly of a hard Brexit and to ignore the wishes of people in Scotland. It was a choice to use Brexit to launch a sustained campaign to undermine the powers of this Parliament. It is a choice to simply ignore agreed constitutional norms, processes and structures wherever and whenever they are considered to be inconvenient. In those circumstances, devolution cannot function as intended and this Parliament cannot operate as it should.

I congratulate the committee again on its excellent report, and I hope that, across the chamber and in all parties, we can work as parliamentarians to address the vital questions that it raises.