Meeting of the Parliament 19 February 2025
I think that I have answered Douglas Ross’s point.
As matters stand, we still face the prospect of laws that were passed in this Parliament—irrespective of what members across this Parliament think—being nullified at the stroke of a pen, and the prospect of those powers being diminished without the Parliament’s consent.
The consultation document recognises some of the damage that was done by the previous UK Government, and it proposes, rightly, that common frameworks—intergovernmental mechanisms for regulatory co-operation that are underpinned by agreed principles, including respect for devolution—represent the correct approach. However, the development of common frameworks has been greatly impeded by the introduction of the IMA. That further strengthens the case for its repeal.
As matters stand, the act’s market access principles apply automatically in nearly every case, impeding sensible discussions on managing divergence and acting as a disincentive to seeking and agreeing proportionate, sustainable solutions. We stand ready to work with the UK Government and other devolved Governments to deliver a better system that will remove the unnecessary, unworkable and undemocratic constraints that the act has placed on the Scottish Parliament. We believe that a better outcome is easily achieved. It is entirely possible to devise a system of regulatory co-operation that provides certainty to businesses, consumers and citizens while respecting devolution.
In that respect, the IMA has demonstrably failed to deliver any of the ambitions that were set out by the UK and devolved Governments in the agreed 2017 statement of principles. In particular, it does not
“respect ... devolution ... and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures”.
If the UK Government is serious about making common frameworks the means by which we manage regulatory co-operation, it has to start by setting out how its proposals will meet the agreed principles that underpin those frameworks. More fundamentally, if it is serious about respecting the decisions of this Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, it should repeal the internal market act. It is baffling that not only has the UK Labour Government refused to repeal the act, it has ruled out even considering repeal or even repealing any part of it as part of the review process.
Devising a better system requires trust, mutual respect and a willingness to listen. The UK Government will find a ready partner in the Scottish Government if it is prepared to approach the issue on those terms and to ensure that the powers of this Parliament are restored in full.
I acknowledge that a Labour Government legislated to establish this Parliament, following an overwhelming vote by the people in September 1997. I do not believe that all those who voted for our new national, democratic and permanent Parliament wanted it to be at the mercy of arbitrary and unaccountable decisions that are made at Westminster. The new Labour Government therefore has a decision to make. It can show that it is committed to the democratic principles that underpin the Scottish Parliament—the principles that Neil Bibby lauded in his comments in October 2023—or it can demonstrate that it is happy to squander that inheritance and endorse the disastrous legacy of the previous Conservative Government. I hope that this Parliament will send a strong, unified message in the name of Scottish democracy.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication of the UK Government’s consultation and review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which sets out that it will “not consider whether to repeal the UK Internal Market Act or any part of it”; recalls that both the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd refused to give the Act legislative consent; notes the position of the Welsh Government, which opposes the Act, believing it to be “an unwarranted attack on devolution”; reaffirms its decision regarding the Act on 3 October 2023, and calls for it to be repealed.
15:38