 The next item of business is a debate on motion 10703, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on protection of Scottish Parliament powers. Members wishing to participate in the debate, you have pressed the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I call on Jamie Hepburn to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around 13 minutes please. I begin by moving the motion. At the outset, lest I forget to do so later on. This debate fulfills a commitment that I made during a member's debate on a similar range of concerns that Keith Brown brought before Palmer. I said that we would bring forward another debate in Government time. I am glad to see that today we can expect greater participation in today's debate by Labour and Liberal Democrat members and we saw in Mr Brown's debate. In this regard, although I have not made it clear, as it will not be a surprise that, as this Government's perspective of the people of Scotland would be best served by independence, under the current constitutional arrangements, there is little to disagree with in Mr Bibby's amendment. We will oppose Mr Cameron's amendment but we will support his. Today's debate goes to the heart of why the people of Scotland voted so overwhelmingly back in 1997 for a Scottish Parliament. They voted to set up this Parliament in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservative Party. That opposition was predictable because it was the reality of unelected Westminster Conservative Governments that drove in large part the devolution movement. People were sick of decisions being taken by Tory Governments that were rejected time and time again by voters here in Scotland. It was a democratic imperative that led to the establishment of this Parliament. People believed that decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland. Although there were and are differences between the other parties about the final destination of that home road journey, the Parliament has narrowed if not entirely eliminated the democratic deficit. There were also practical policy reasons as well as a strong sense of democratic renewal that led to the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament. At the scandal of the poll tax was probably one of the worst examples of the imposition of policy against the wishes of the majority of the people who live in Scotland. This is the establishment of this Parliament that has been in real gains, often commanding cross-party support. However, today the Tories are intent on rolling back the gains of devolution, taking back control of policy to Westminster and widening the democratic deficit once again. The Conservatives have just six MPs in Scotland but behave too often as if they can ignore and override our democracy. Arthur Jack uses his position as Scottish Secretary of some kind of high-on Governor General telling the elected Government and elected Parliament of Scotland what is and what is not acceptable to him. Scottish Government has set out a number of ways in which the UK Government's action has constrained and undermined devolution. Those include reducing the effective powers of the Scottish Parliament through the UK Internal Market Act, giving powers to UK ministers to intervene directly in matters within devolved responsibilities. Under mining the school convention, blocking legislation in devolved matters passed by the Scottish Parliament for the first time, putting at risk EU laws on environmental protection, food standards and other devolved matters, and taking a direct role in devolved policy and decisions on public spending in devolved matters by passing this Scottish Parliament. Evidence for all these is set out in detail in this Government's paper, Devolution since the Brexit referendum, and in our evidence to Scottish Parliament committees. Since the publication of that paper, there have been further developments on two of the issues that I want to explore in more detail in my remarks today. First is the UK Government's continued erosion of the school convention, culminating in its approach to the energy bill, which stands the convention on its head. Second, in the focus of our motion today, is the emerging implications of the Intel Market Act and its wide-ranging practical constraints on the ability of this Parliament to pursue policy objectives and implement the choices of people of Scotland. In highlighting those two areas, I do not want to underplay the other threats to devolution that we have set out. For example, we can see the risks in the so-called levelling up agenda, which attempts to give UK ministers a role in setting priorities and targets for devolved matters such as health and education, striking out the very power of the school convention. Similarly, UK ministers spending money directly in devolved areas bypasses this Parliament, risking an incoherent approach to policy, and it moves clear accountability for public spending decisions on devolved areas in Scotland. I am very grateful to the minister who gave way in much of what he is saying carries to resonance, but does he not feel that the last 16 years have also been a missed opportunity for the Scottish Government to devolve powers to our local authorities to bring it even closer to the people that we all serve? Of course, it is the actions and the role of local government of critical importance to the people who live in our communities. In that regard, we place the highest importance in our relationship with local government, as set out in the Verity House agreement, in which we will continue to take forward that partnership working. Returning to the motion before us and the debate today on the school convention, members will be well aware that, since 2018, UK Government has repeatedly chosen to ignore or override the views of this Parliament and indeed the Welsh Senate when they become an inconvenience to them. They have now breached the school convention 11 times and, sadly, we can confidently expect this UK Government to do so again. Most recently, UK Government has taken this approach further. During the course of our negotiations on the energy bill, UK Government ministers indicated that the amendments that they offered were conditional on Scottish ministers recommending that the Scottish Parliament give consent to all relevant provisions in the bill. If the Scottish Government did not recommend consent, the amendments would not be lodged or would be withdrawn. This approach effectively reverses the school convention. UK Government should respect the views of this Parliament and should promote amendments to reflect those. Instead, it is threatening to revert to a form of a bill that is even less acceptable to the Scottish Government and indeed this Parliament unless there is a recommendation for consent. The Scottish Government has made clear that such a negotiation tactic is unacceptable. Presiding Officer, it is tantamount to blackmail and incompatible with good faith negotiation on important topics. It is also clearly illustrated the hauled-out shell that is the school convention. Instead of the need for legislative consent, protecting the interests of this Parliament, the threat of proceeding without consent has become a weapon for the UK Government. Those are not just concerns of the Scottish Government. As Mark Drakeford has said, when it became inconvenient for the UK Government to observe school, it just went ahead and rode roughshod through it. On the energy bill, because we need certain provisions to further our net zero ambitions, we have in effect been forced to recommend consent to a bill that does not respect the devolution settlement. Another immense request by the Scottish Government has been rejected by the UK Government. The UK Government has refused to include statute consent mechanisms for the Scottish Government in all but a very small number of clauses. Those amendments would have improved the impact of the bill and fully respected devolved competence. This sign or else approach to devolution is not what people voted for in the referendum 26 years ago. I turn now to the main thrust of today's debate, that being the UK Internal Market Act. The act illustrates all of the actions that the UK Government has taken to undermine devolution. First, it was passed after both this Parliament and the Welsh Senate explicitly withheld legislative consent, despite its significant effect and, of all matters, after a minimal consultation period of just four weeks over the summer of 2020. If the Sule convention can be in its exemplary nod for an act of such significance, it is clearly of little or no value in protecting Scotland's democratic self-government. Second, the act gives UK ministers powers to effectively change the devolution settlement unilaterally through secondary legislation at Westminster. UK ministers and only UK ministers can grant or refuse exclusions to the internal market act, effectively undermining legislation passed by this chamber. They can also decide to include or exclude whole sectors from the act, meaning areas such as health services, social services and water services can join the already long list of devolved policy areas at risk from the internal market act. I do not think that any member of this Parliament should be comfortable with the thought that with the mere stroke of a pen a UK Government minister could open up our health service or a water and sewerage to the blunt market acts as provisions of the internal market act. And there would be nothing we could do to stop them to create a hit list of public services they wanted to target. Third, like the levelling up agenda, the internal market act gives UK ministers a tool to dictate policy in devolved areas to this Parliament. We have already seen this with the deposit return scheme, which is wholly within devolved competency. The UK Government, at the 11th hour, disregarded the agreed process and refused an exclusion from the internal market act for our Scottish scheme, without providing any evidence for their decision while we are asked to provide significant amounts of evidence through the process. It was only prepared to allow a scheme to proceed if it reflected the UK Government's policy for England, which does not even exist yet. Not the policy decided democratically in this Parliament for Scotland. We now find ourselves totally dependent on progress by the UK Government in England to implement a deposit return scheme without glass despite their own evidence showing it to be economically and environmentally beneficial to such a scheme to which Scotland must align with. The potential problems with the internal market act were obvious from the outset. But now the act is starting to have real practical effects in undermining and constraining devolved policy for Scotland. There is the issue, for example, of animal welfare. We are taking steps to ban the use of cruel glue traps in Scotland to really end the use of these devices effectively. We need to ban their sale. Again, without an exclusion, we cannot do that effectively because of the internal market act. Again, we are dependent on the UK ministers' agreement for us to implement effective policy in a wholly devolved policy area. The internal market act also creates new uncertainty about Scotland's ability to legislate effectively in other areas where action is being considered. For example, in the area of public health, we control of vapes, whether banning the sale of single-use vapes to protect our environment or exploring possible restrictions in vape flavouring and packaging to better protect the health of our young people. Another example is the review of the minimum unit price of alcohol and other measures to control the marketing of alcohol. Another might be environmental measures such as the banning of the sale of horticultural peat or introducing charges for single-use disposable cups. All of those might be affected by the internal market act, which crucially empowers UK ministers to undermine this Parliament's legislation. Nor should we forget the other effect of that act, just as we may not be able to fully implement decisions and matters within our responsibilities for Scotland. Neither can we prevent decisions made by the UK Government for England having effect here. We have already seen this in the UK Government's Genetic Technology Act, which removes gene-edited products from the scope of genetically modified organisms' regulations in England. Despite this legislation not applying in Scotland through the Internal Market Act, gene-edited food and feed products coming from England could be sold in Scotland unlabeled and unauthorised. The UK Government relaxes other regulations on food standards or labouring, for example. Again, there is nothing—not a thing—that this Parliament can do to prevent those products being placed in the market here, despite different standards set in Scotland. As well as those direct effects, the Internal Market Act continues to undermine the common framework approach that is agreed between the Governments of the UK. The Scottish Government has been an active part of other Governments through common frameworks where we have all agreed to manage some of the practical regulatory effects of Brexit in a manner that respects the evolution and the democratic accountability of this Parliament. The Scottish Government continues to believe that the common framework process can provide a forum for Governments to work together on matters of regulatory divergence with principles of equality and respect. However, that relies on a system of working to mutual respect. The Internal Market Act, both in its creation and its content, shows no such value. It radically constrains the powers of this Parliament, creates a massive power imbalance between the UK Government and evolved Governments, gives UK ministers exclusive powers to intervene in the policies of this Parliament and change our very powers all without agreement or consent. That act is hostile to the Scottish democracy, causing practical damage and needs to go. Therefore, commend this motion in my name to all members and ask them to vote for a decision ticket. I now call on Donald Cameron to speak to and move amendment 10703.1. Around nine minutes, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I duly move the amendment in my name? Our constituents elect us to this Chamber to discuss, debate and scrutinise legislation. They elect us to assist them with their problems, whether they be ordinary or exceptional. Fundamentally, we are here to improve the lives of the people we represent. Today, sadly, we do none of that. Instead, we stand here today debating one of the SNP Government's favourite fantasies, namely that the powers of this Parliament are in peril and are being undermined by the UK Government. Now, I know the real reason for this debate is to distract attention from the current travails of the SNP. Plainly, all is not happy in their ranks, a divided, fragmented party, so anything to deflect. Of course, as has been mentioned, we already had a debate on this subject in May in a Members' debate led by Keith Brown. That wasn't a particularly enlightening debate, but it did contain a vast amount of hyperbole. We heard that Holyrood is under attack and that some within these walls are complicit in that attack. One SNP MSP said that we are being subsumed back into the pre-devolution years, another accused UK Government of deploying dictatorial tactics. I'm afraid nothing that we've heard from the minister today deflects from that. Minister, would you not recognise that what I set out in relation to the UK energy bill is precisely that? It was a take-it-leave approach. That's dictating to this Government, this democratic elected Government and this Parliament. It's their way or the highway. I will come to that in a moment, but, Deputy Presiding Officer, these aren't rational arguments, we've just said. It's just empty rhetoric from the minister. Let me state some hard truths to him. No, I won't. I'm going to make some progress. Let me state some hard truths to him. As our amendment states, the UK Government is investing directly in Scotland and working with local authorities and other partners to enable people across Scotland to benefit. Poll after poll reveals one basic, simple point. People want the Scottish Government to work collaboratively and constructively with the UK Government. They like positive joint working. They like programmes such as the city and growth deals and green preports. The fact is that devolution is stronger than it ever has been, not least because the UK Government delivered powers to this Parliament in the Scotland Act 2016. Indeed, this Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world. It's not the fault of the UK Government, but after 15 long years in power, the SNP has run out of ideas unable to make full use of the suite of powers this Parliament possesses. The Scottish Government amendment returns to the debate over the UK Internal Markets Act 2020. Let me talk about common frameworks. They don't undermine common frameworks. They're working. They've been agreed. The UK Government passed that act without a legislative consent motion in order to protect Scotland's trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. 60 per cent of Scotland's trade is with the rest of the UK, and over half a million Scottish jobs rely on it. Let us remember that the Scottish Government tried to argue that there is no such thing as the UK internal market. The UK internal market act properly seeks to address the tension between open trade and regulatory divergence. It creates two market access principles, the mutual recognition principle and the non-discrimination principle. Without that, businesses could suffer. That's why, in evidence for the constitution committee, both the NFUS and CBI Scotland spoke of its importance precisely because the UK is a highly integrated market and it is imperative that we maintain the free movement of goods and services produced to the same regulatory standards. Let me move on to touch on a few other issues. Section 35, and Sue, very briefly. I'm very grateful to Member Giveway. Can I inquire as to his view of the value of legislative consent motions? Should they be sought by the Westminster Government? If, for whatever reason, this Parliament chooses not to grant it, do you think there should be an explanation from the Westminster Government about why it is an exceptional circumstance to proceed? I totally believe in the need for a legislative consent mechanism. In terms of the specifics, I don't think that it requires an explanation from the UK Government. I don't think that that's necessarily advisable because, after all, in terms of the Scotland Act, it is permissible for the UK Government to legislate in devolved areas. That's a matter of law. That's a founding principle of this Parliament. That is why we have the Sewell Convention to enable the UK Parliament to legislate in devolved areas where necessary. I'll come back to it in a moment. Sorry, I don't have time. I've already gone through. Let me touch on a few other issues. Section 35, which is frequently mentioned as representing an attack on devolution. I have said on numerous occasions before that section 35 is intrinsic to the Scotland Act. It's part and parcel of the devolution settlement. It's not a new clause or concept. It was explicitly included by the founders of devolution in the Scotland Act 1998, by the Labour Administration of the day. Fundamentally, it is reasonable to argue that the powers of this Parliament have been undermined for the use of section 35, which was included in the founding text of devolution. Coming to Sewell, every member of the Constitution Committee has acknowledged that the Sewell Convention is under strain, but the suggestion that it is on the point of collapse is simply not the case. I will regularly, in the moment, finish this point. As I previously noted, we regularly pass legislative consent motions in the Parliament without a division. There is one tomorrow about the energy bill. The Scottish Government is recommending success, consent. To characterise that as blackmail, I suggest to the minister that there are always discussions at ministerial and official level about these things. The Scottish Government have to share some of the blame. What about the times that the Scottish Government has spuriously claimed that devolved competence is engaged when, on any reasonable view, it's not? What about the times that the Scottish Government has called ludicrous— Can you resume your seat a second? Minister, you know, as well as I do, that it's up to members whether or not they take an intervention. You've made clear your desire for an intervention. Mr Cameron has made clear that he wishes to proceed at this point. It's up to him if at a later stage he wants to take that intervention. Mr Cameron, please resume and get the time back. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. What about the times that the Scottish Government has brought ludicrous arguments about not consenting—for example, the memorandum about the environment bill? In 2021 alone, the Scottish Parliament gave consent to eight bills, and there are specific instances, numbers of instances, where this Parliament consented to what might be called Brexit or post-Brexit legislation on fisheries and farming. Now I will give way to the minister. I wonder if Mr Cameron thinks it's peculiar, and he says that the Sewell Convention has been used normally. In the period when the Parliament was convened to 2018, there was only one instance, and apparently it was inadvertent, where the Sewell Convention was ignored. But since that period, there's been nine. That hardly seems like a normal set of circumstances. As I've just said, in 2021 alone, the Scottish Government consented to eight bills. The Sewell Convention is working. Now I won't. The Sewell Convention is working. To characterise it as at risk or collapsing is ludicrous. We can week out, we consent to Westminster legislation. Can I return quickly to the issue of levelling up? Because again, we heard a few attacks on this. I've said this before, I'll say it again. At no point during the decades in which we were a member of the EU, did the SNP ever complain about the EU injecting funds into local communities? However, now that the UK Government is doing the same, it feins outrage. The ability for the UK Government to directly invest in devolved policy areas is part and parcel of devolution. It happens in Germany, it happens in Canada, it happens in Australia. If it's commonplace in these countries, why is Scotland the exception? Why is it positive for the German Government to invest in policy areas overseen by the landers, but somehow negative for the UK Government to do so in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? A ferry for the fair isle, £140 million announced this week for seven Scottish towns, £20 million for Clydebank, Co-bridge, Dumfries, Elgin, Irvine, Greenock and Kilmarnock. Money provided to the relevant local authority, where the UK Government intends to work with them and the Scottish Government. It's the latest in a long line of projects, projects that create jobs, projects that rejuvenate parts of Scotland that have been forgotten about and overlooked by the SNP. £2.4 billion invested by the UK Government and yet the SNP object. Yet again, Deputy Presiding Officer, we are failing to debate the important issues that people in Scotland actually care about. The constitution is far, far down the list of the Scottish people's priorities, but the SNP can't find anything else to talk about. They could have come to this chamber to talk about ferries and answer why the two vessels sitting in a dockyard on the Clyde are another £24 million over budget. They could have come to talk about why councils are being forced to cut vital public services. They could have come to this chamber to come clean about reinstating their cut to create a Scotland's budget by £6.6 million. But no, week after week, month after month, year after year, it's all about the constitution, more grievance, more pandering to the nationalist base. We will use our debate time, Deputy Presiding Officer, to focus on Scotland's real priorities. Thank you, Mr Cameron. I appreciate that we're going to have some excitable debate at times, but there is a bit of time in hand to take interventions. Therefore, the contribution should be made as interventions and not as sedentary heckling. I call Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment 10703.3 up to seven minutes, Mr Bibby. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon's debate. After a turbulent number of years for devolution, let me start on a general point of agreement with the Government and the topic of this debate. Following Brexit, the UK Conservative Government has regrettably unleashed a particularly crude understanding of the role of devolution within the UK. These years have been characterised by unrest, disrespect and uncertainty. The aim and ambition of devolution, as enacted in 1998 by the last Labour Government, has been consistently undermined in the actions and attitudes of the current UK Government, far from being about respect and appreciation of the diversity and difference of our UK nations. The Conservative Government has sought to constrain and attack not just the actual powers of this place but the authority of the devolved institutions as a whole. I would just like to make some progress. We have seen this take form in a number of ways. We can point to the legislation that the UK Government has passed irrespective of this Parliament with holding consent. As the Scottish Government motion for today correctly notes, the UK Internal Market Act was passed by the Conservative Government despite both the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Senedd with holding consent. Members will recall that my party, the Labour Party, voted against the Internal Market Act here in Scotland but also in Wales as well. We also opposed the legislation at Westminster to make all three Parliaments two sites in the implications for devolution and concern over market access principles. In doing so, we recognise the economic and wider importance of maintaining consistent standards and safeguards across the United Kingdom, but the current approach taken by the Conservative Government in this regard is deeply flawed. We are clear that maintaining free trade across the United Kingdom is critically important to Scotland's national interest. I know that the SNP and Greens may be slightly less concerned about that than we are, but it is crucial to our businesses, workers and Scottish consumers. Donald Cameron mentioned statistics earlier in 2020, according to the Scottish Government's own figures. 62 per cent of Scotland's exports went to the rest of the UK and 67 per cent of Scotland's imports came from the rest of the UK. We trade far more, in fact, twice as much with the rest of the UK as we do with the rest of the world combined. I give Mr Bibby a sense of reassurance in the current constitutional arrangements and, indeed, in the context of independence, the SNP and the Scottish Gump's position as we recognise the need for free trade with the rest of the UK. Would he recognise, and I hope he would, that the process for negotiating those matters under the current context should be one of equal respect with joint input rather than imposition by the UK Government? Neil Bibby, you can give you the time back. Yes, I genuinely agree with that. I will come on to talk about Labour's proposals in that regard and I welcome the Minister for Independence's recognition of the importance of economic trade across the UK. It is little wonder, given the statistics that I have mentioned, unsurprising that economic modelling has suggested that increased regulatory barriers between the four home nations would have a negative effect on GDP. However, maintaining standards and protecting free trade across the UK, we must assure that there are effective agreed frameworks to predict devolution at the same time. We must manage the tensions between open trade and regulatory divergence without undermining the devolution settlement. That is not easy to achieve but that is our approach and what our amendment sets out to do. That is also why we did not believe that it was right to impose the rule that the lowest regulatory standard in one Parliament must be the standard for all without a proper voice for devolved Governments. We believe that the interests of the people of Scotland are best served when both the Scottish and UK Governments work together in co-operation with other devolved Administrations in the UK. For far too long, we have unfortunately seen conflict ahead of co-operation. That must change and we need to see effective and grow up into governmental relations now and into the future. That is not dogged either by nationalist grievance or muscular unionism. We on this side of the chamber have been clear that if Labour has the privilege of forming the next UK Government, we want to create better working relationships between the UK Government and all devolved Governments and Administrations. Neil Bibby, can you take the opportunity to confirm that, were there to be an incoming Labour Government that the sole convention would be incorporated on a statutory basis? There is a proposal set out in the report on the UK's future in that regard and it is certainly something that we are considering very carefully taking forward and obviously the manifesto process is still to be set. I hope that the next general election in Scotland will play its part in making that change possible so that there can be a reset in relations and this disastrous chapter of Tory misrule is brought to an end. Today's debate is about defending this Parliament's powers and we are committed to doing just that. It is great to listen to all those lovely words, it is like a word salad, but it does not add up to much because I have not heard anything that Labour is proposing to do that would create all of these nice things that Neil Bibby is talking about. What exactly would Labour do because at the minute they do not seem to be prepared to say or do anything? Neil Bibby, can you give the time back for those interventions? I think that we want to maintain free trade across the UK and we want to respect the devolution settlement through effective agreed frameworks to take that forward. That is the road that we will go down if we are fortunate enough to be elected. The next UK Labour Government will transform the UK with the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster and deliver economic, democratic and social renewal across the nations and regions. Labour will replace the outdated House of Lords with an elected second chamber, a new chamber that will have representation from across the nations and regions including Scotland. A specific role in protecting the devolution settlement. A UK Labour Government will prioritise co-operation over conflict and ensure that Scotland's view is properly represented in UK institutions. Sorry, I have taken quite a few interventions, I want to make some progress. For example, our new industrial strategy council, but we do not just need change at a UK level, we need change here in Scotland too. Yes, we have a Conservative UK Government that has no respect for this Parliament having so casually undermined and disregarded the significance and value of it. We also have an SNP in Green Scottish Government that too often hides behind the recklessness of the Tories to avoid criticism and accountability. A Scottish Government that has too often its own lack of respect for the powers of this Parliament demonstrated by ministers, bypassing statements that should be made in this chamber and Government ignoring votes in this chamber. The debate is certainly not the big event of Scottish politics this week. That will be the rather than Hamilton West by-election on Thursday. I have been in the constituency a lot and listening to the priorities of local residents. Speaking to the people in that constituency as well as my own region, it is fair to say that, despite the merits of this debate, the UK Internal Market Act is not the issue that everyone is talking about. In fact, to the extent that the powers of this Parliament are coming up, people are not protesting about what Scotland can't do. They are asking what the Scottish Government is actually doing with the extensive powers of this Parliament. Powers should not be sought for its own sake. Scotland today, after 16 years of SNP rule, is stagnating. Our ambition changed and our people held back. On almost all measure's success, this Government is failing to train the powers that it has to achieve better ends. We have children missing out on education, school staff take strike action, councils are forced to make impossible decisions because of underfunding and disrespect shown to them by this Government. More and more of the 1 in 7 Scots on the NHS witness having to go private and islanders just looking for some ferries. And, as has already been mentioned, the creative sector has come out to dry by this Government because of broken promises on funding. The Labour Party that legislated for and delivered devolution will defend, protect and enhance if we have the opportunity to serve, but we also want to use the powers of this place to help deliver the changes that people in Scotland need. I move the amendment to my name. I now call Willie Rennie at around six minutes, Mr Rennie. An old SNP press officer was fond of saying that Lib Dem pressure leases were a boomerang, designed to attack opponents but walloping the critic right back on the notes. Well, today's motion is by the very definition a boomerang motion. Many of the arguments about criticism of the Conservative Government and its treatment of the Scottish Parliament have already been rehearsed today and many of them I agree with in favour of a federal solution for the United Kingdom. I want proportional representation, I want a written constitution and I also want the abolition of the House of Lords. But it's depressing, really depressing that we can't get two mature Governments just to work together and sort out these problems. But this is the Scottish Parliament and we are here to hold the Scottish Government to account for its actions. On 19 September 2018, the Scottish Parliament voted by 63 votes to 61 for a motion calling for the Scottish Government to halt national testing in primary 1. Five years on from that vote, more than 90,000 tests are still taking place every year for children as young as four years old, damaging young children, ignoring our Parliament. What was worse is that the Scottish Government immediately, after that vote at the time, declared their intention to completely ignore the vote of the Scottish Parliament, the democratically elected Scottish Parliament, so much for respecting the authority of Holyrood. Passed information commissioner criticised the Scottish Government's handling of freedom of information requests. He found unjustifiable significant delays. He found that responses to journalist inquiries were delayed and only released when authorised by unelected SNP special advisers. Freedom of information laws are among the most important and earliest laws passed by this Parliament, but when laws of this Parliament don't suit the SNP Government, they just ignore them. In June, the First Minister said that Scotland had the majority of the renewables and natural resources in the UK. The correct figure for 2022 was 26 per cent. I don't think that's a majority and it's not even one-third. I hear a member say, what's this got to do with this debate? This debate is about respecting the authority of the Scottish Parliament and those terms are not set out by the SNP, they're set out by the Scottish Parliament. We all make mistakes, but what makes this worse is that it appears that independent civil servants retrospectively created statistics to justify an incorrect statement from the First Minister. Eventually, Mr Yousav said he intended to say per capita in his... I realise that members are entitled or expected to address the motion before them. Can I ask if you have any guidance on when the member intends to come round to the UK Internal Market Act? I think that Mr Rennie has made clear how he's linking his remarks to the motion. He can choose to address that motion in any way he likes. Will he or any to resume? If the member would like to, he could look at the business bulletin, which is published every day, and it sets out my amendment, which is exactly the terms that I'm speaking about today. Eventually, Mr Yousav said he intended to say per capita in his original answer, but it's statistical mumbo jumbo to say that there's a majority per capita. The request for the First Minister to refer himself to the independent adviser on the ministerial code unanswered for almost three weeks. That's not protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament. However, the SNP has been at this for years. Back in 2012, Alex Salmond was found out on the EU legal advice. The then First Minister, hailed as a hero by those on the SNP benches, repeatedly said that Scotland would be an automatic member of the European Union. He asserted that this position was supported by his Government's legal advice. Asked whether he had sought advice from the Scottish Government's own law officers, Mr Salmond replied, we have, yes, in terms of the debate. His then deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, undermined that claim when she admitted ministers had not sought formal advice from the law officers. Tens of thousands of pounds were wasted in court to keep the non-existing advice secret, undermining this Parliament when it suits them. They repeatedly flout the rules that announcements should be made to this Parliament first. Just last year, the Presiding Officer reprimanded Angus Robertson for releasing his latest independence report to the media before the Parliament, making the rules up to suit themselves. On top of all that, there are the endless, noddy debates, while the SNP avoids the real debates that we should be discussing in this Parliament. NHS waiting times, mental health waits, the yawning poverty-related attainment gap in schools, the closure of police stations, teacher unemployment, the sluggish economy, the failure to deliver 2,000 jobs at the Lochaber smelter, selling off Scotland on the cheap, the ferries, where the costs have almost tripled, the dumping of sewage in our rivers, the £50 million lost with BiFab, the failure to sell presswick. The list goes on and on, and the boomerang goes round and round and round. I would caution you in terms of respect to members and to the Parliament that referring to debates in the way that you did is perhaps not entirely consistent with that. We now move to the open debate, and I call first Michelle Thompson to be followed by Stephen Kerr around six minutes. I knew that the Scottish Liberal Democrats were irrelevant, but I didn't expect them to prove it quite so readily today. It all started with Brexit, didn't it? Sold adud by Tory Brexiteers by stoking then playing in their fears, people in the UK took a leap into the darkness, apart from Scotland, who wisely voted by a majority to remain. It wasn't immediately obvious that the slogan take back control really meant something entirely different. The lunatics in the asylum forced through a hard Brexit and a power grab by Westminster on our institution, this Scottish Parliament. Sensible proposals to allow Scotland to continue to have access to the single market were ignored, but eventually conceded for Northern Ireland and the admission that they had the best deal possible by Sunach when he was chancellor. The supine Scottish Tories are left with a rictus grin and defending the indefensible as the evidence mounts up with the latest poll showing 58 per cent of UK voters in favour of re-entering the EU. No wonder people were too embarrassed to turn up to the Tory conference. The Labour Party branch office in Scotland are no better, make Brexit work clear, claim Sir Keir Starmer, in an attempt to woo back red-wall voters. Even the Labour amendment, which can be summarised as plain ice, is paltry, but it's good news that they agree to repeal of the UK IMA, a set-out in the SNP motion. Is this the response to an all-out assault on the institution that the Labour Party claimed to have helped create? They must be embarrassed by the Welsh Labour leader showing him how objections to the internal market act are done. The Parliament made clear that it refused to give consent, as did the Welsh Senate, but that alongside a multitude of other sole motions have been ignored, another by-product of the lack of respect from Westminster of this institution. So what then of the internal market act? It won't surprise members to know that I yield towards facilitating business and so can understand the sensible approach adopted by the Scottish Government in agreeing to common frameworks. The evidence heard by the Constitution, European External Affairs and Culture Committee was overwhelmingly that the UK IMA places more emphasis on open trade than regulatory autonomy. In terms of balance and fundamentally allowing devolution to continue to work where the whole point was allowing divergence on matters expressed democratically through the ballot box, the act is skewed. It was made clear that it would have an effect, not just my view but that of Professor McEwen, who said to the committee about the act that it, and I quote, might in of itself be introducing delays in the policy making process if not putting things into a long-term chill. The UK IMA stifles innovation or a different way of doing things. Would the smoking ban have been allowed? Would the introduction of a charge for plastic bags have been allowed in Rishi Sunak's climate denying world? The same committee highlights concerns around public health choices by the likes of Alcohol Focus Scotland, Ash Scotland and Obesity Action Scotland. They collectively, and I quote from the report, have serious concerns that the effect of the mutual recognition principle for goods will be to significantly reduce the benefits of introducing new devolved measures to protect public health. The real concern is one of democracy, or rather lack of. The Fraser of Allander Institute said this. The internal market act can therefore be seen as enabling a range of UK Government interventions that bypass not only the Barnett formula but the devolved administrations themselves. So let me rephrase that by bypassing this democratically elected Parliament. Viceroy Jack, in his recent speech to the Tory conference, now delights in his new understanding of devolution. No more devolve and forgets, says he, emboldening the bypassing of the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Scotland. He says that he is giving back a further £140 million of our money to seven local councils in Scotland, based on whose priorities. Who voted for that? How will it be monitored? The FPAC committee is still waiting for Michael Gove to make his promised return to account for the last lot of money. The funds are to be spread over 10 years at £26 million per year. Compare that to the £183 million that this Parliament got from the EU. Presiding Officer, those Scottish politicians who refused to stand up for Scotland during a cost of living crisis who turned down opportunities to make matters better such as denying this place the ability to control employment law will not be forgiven. Do not forget the rights of the people of Scotland, rights that remain and will not be removed. I look forward to further exploration of the implications of this in our SNP conference in October. We need a clear path to independence. It is more vital than ever. As with Mr Rennie, I discourage the use of nicknames when referring whether to parliamentarians in this chamber or indeed in other parliaments. With that I call Stephen Kerr to be followed by Keith Brown around six minutes, Mr Kerr. Respecting what you have just said, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would have to say that I do agree with other speakers who have suggested that this is a complete waste of this Parliament's time this debate. In all honesty, that is exactly what it is. We have heard again a speech from Michelle Thompson, where she conflates Scotland with the SNP. Surely the SNP members can find a cure for this illness. They seem to have contracted together to identify themselves as being Scotland when they are clearly not Scotland. That conflation really is tired and time spent. The other thing that was said, I thought that Martin Whitfield's intervention earlier was very telling as well, because the truth is that this SNP Government absolutely has no respect for the concept of devolution. It absolutely is the most centralising Government, imaginable, everything they can touch that is locally managed and near to the public, gets brought to the centre and then so horrendously mismanaged because of their incompetence. I think that the Scottish people can see that very clearly now. In respect to the time that we are spending debating this nonsense of emotion, we could have been talking about things that are fully devolved. We could have been talking about the health service, education and policing. All these areas where this Parliament plays such a vital role, but the SNP and the Greens do not want the scrutiny of this Parliament, a subject that I will come back to. One of the things that we could have spent this afternoon talking about is how this Parliament works. I am afraid that, from the point of view of the Scottish people, for some time now our Parliament has not been as effective as they expect it to be. The debate, sadly, is an example of that. We need far more spontaneous debate in this Parliament and in this chamber, and for far too long we have had a set-up where the whips, the party managers, the parties manage the business. They manage the speakers. Frankly, it is a lack of a backbench culture in this Parliament that has led to the kind of straight-jacketed, stilted approach that we have to every issue that comes before this chamber. Ultimately, the SNP Government will do anything it can to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, which was mentioned earlier in relation to truth-telling, that the Government falls short in that regard as well. The excessive continuous flow of pointless motions squanders precious little parliamentary time that we have, while urgent issues facing Scotland remain unaddressed. I will, out of respect, give way to Christine Grahame. I was just going to ask you to be spontaneous and take some interventions. I beg your pardon. I was going to ask the member to be spontaneous, take some interventions and have lively debate, and not just echo us and rant at us. I am delighted to have been able to fulfil the Christine Grahame's wishes in an instant, but the SNP representatives have long run out of ideas for Scotland. They can echo all they like. They can try and shout me down. I know that is the classic SNP playbook, by the way, when someone says something you do not agree with. Just make sure you make as much noise as possible. Frankly, they operate by the playbook, the Nicola Sturgeon playbook, now the Humza Yousaf playbook, same book, different face on the cover, by creating as much distraction through the manufacture of grievance as they can. It is very hard for me to disagree with the member for Inverness and Nairn when he said last week that it is increasingly apparent that the SNP Government is not interested in putting Scotland's interests first, but clearly, as always, they are interested in putting the SNP's interests first. That is why the Secretary of State for Scotland was absolutely right on Sunday when he said that Scotland's two Governments should work together for the benefit of the people of Scotland, because that is a common sense position supported by the people of Scotland, and that is the position of the Scottish Conservatives. For the SNP and the Scottish Greens to parade themselves as the protectors and defenders of devolution is laughable. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Scotland's political history in the last few decades knows that the SNP were implacably opposed to devolution. They exist to destroy devolution, and they scrape together any excuse that they can to undermine and devalue devolution. I will give way one more time if I might. I thank the member for giving way. I am interested in his view of history. Will he not confirm that the SNP campaign further to be a Scottish Parliament, and contrary to what he has just insinuated just now, his party actually campaigned for there not to be one? Dr Allan's party exists to destroy the devolution settlement, and so they take every opportunity that they can to find any grievance that they can to throw into the works and to make sure that devolution is as hard as possible to operate by the UK Government and the Government of Scotland. The truth is, and it was mentioned earlier, that there are regular and good working relationships between Scottish ministers and UK ministers, and good working relationships between UK civil servants and UK civil servants based in Edinburgh. That is another myth that the SNP wished to perpetuate, which is absolutely erroneous. No, the SNP seeks to destroy this Parliament, and the evidence of that is through the way that they conduct themselves. This is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. Guess what? It was the Conservative party in government that oversaw the devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament during the past decade. The reality of that can be seen by the fact that we now have 29 Scottish ministers, many more than ever before, and when challenged for the reason for the expansion in the number of Scottish ministers, the SNP says that it is because they have an expanded range of ministerial responsibilities and powers. Guess where they came from? They came from a Conservative Government at Westminster. I do not think that I will be taking any lectures from the SNP about the undermining of this Parliament by the UK Government, particularly from an SNP Scottish Green Government, when it is the Conservatives that have made this Parliament the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. That is why I accept what Dr Allan said. I was against devolution, I did vote against devolution, but you know what I have got now, Dr Allan? I have got the zeal of the convert. I believe in devolution, but I believe in the devolution that reaches every town, every village and every part of Scotland, where people feel that they are involved in making decisions for the future of themselves, their families and their communities. I will wind up, because I am being encouraged to wind up. There are many other things that I would like to have said, particularly about Yukima, but I will not be able to get those in. I do think that, if I may conclude by saying that I will take the invitation that the SNP offered to conclude, I will say that the Scottish Parliament needs to have a good look at itself. We, the members of the Scottish Parliament, should have a good look at ourselves. Ask ourselves why the legislation that we have sent from this place into the statute book is often regarded and quite rightly so, is unworkable, unenforcable and broken before it even leaves here. Finally, in terms of the powers of scrutiny, what powers of scrutiny? We should be asking ourselves about the structures, the processes of this Parliament and making improvements so that this place is worthy of the good people of Scotland. I now call Keith Brown to be followed by Martin Whitfield in six minutes. We have just seen, in words more eloquent than any that I can summon from Stephen Care, the basis of the Conservative attack on the Scottish Parliament. He states that the power in this place comes not from the people of Scotland but from the Conservative Party. He also states that he has the zeal of the convert and yet he is trying as fast as he can to run away from this Parliament at the first opportunity. People can draw their own conclusions from that. My member's debate in May on a similar topic to this one, I stated that our Parliament was under attack by the UK Government and five months later the UK is again deliberately stripping our Scottish Parliament of its hard fought for and hard won powers. In 1997, around 75 per cent of Scots voted for the creation of this Parliament. I campaigned, along with Labour and other DEM colleagues who have been very silent in recent months, for the establishment of this Parliament, not just for its establishment but for it to have tax-raising powers bitterly opposed by the Conservatives at that time. Many of us can be guilty of forgetting a time before this Parliament existed. It is important to remember that the Parliament was not created by accident. It came into being with the support of three quarters of the population of our country in order to respond to the real and pressing need for Scottish self-government. The strength of support that delivered that result had built up over decades of Westminster's mis-government in Scotland, not least in mismanagement of, for example, oil and gas. You remember the Labour Party concealing from the people of Scotland through the Macron report the real value of the oil and gas that was in the North Sea at that time. Remember the industrial disputes of the 1970s and 80s, as I mentioned last week. Consistent Westminster Governments rejected by Scottish voters but nevertheless governing Scotland being just a few of the reasons why that emphatic result was delivered in 1997. Given the motion that is up for debate today, many of us speaking on this issue will focus on the technical or the legislative aspects that have led to the power grab on our Parliament. I would like to shift focus for a second on the real difference that this Parliament has made to the everyday lives of people in Scotland since it was established and therefore proved why the powers of this institution absolutely must be protected. The progress made under devolution is far too broad to do justice in six minutes, but lower income tax for most Scots just to remind people that more people in Scotland play less tax, a bigger proportion of them than do in the rest of the UK. The lowest-average council tax of any UK nation, the expansion of free early learning and childcare to 1,140 hours, the scrapping of tuition fees and prescription charges, free personal care for everyone who needs it, the Scottish child payment, which incidentally supports 7,000 people. There are 295 children in Clotmanushire and Stilling Councils areas alone, alongside many other benefits from Social Security Scotland. These are just some of the measures that various Scottish Governments have implemented since 1999 that make the lives of ordinary Scots better, none of which featured in the speech, of course, from Willie Rennie. Everyday, we can contrast and compare the situation in the rest of the UK and see clearly the marked difference made by this Parliament for everyday Scots, and research backs us up. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scotland has a lower poverty rate at 18 per cent compared to England's 22 per cent and Wales's 24 per cent. I think that that alone proves the difference that governing our own affairs can make. Indeed, this week alone, and it's only Tuesday, we've seen the news that the price of water in England and Wales has to increase by £156 a year in order to line the pockets of private shareholders. Well, this Parliament has consistently kept Scottish water in public hands. Compare the ffancle over HS2 taking place at the Conservative Party conference at the moment. Hearing Donald Carmen talk about the SAP being in disarray when you look at what's happening in Manchester today really is ironic. The Scottish Government's action though taken in contrast to the fiasco of HS2 to scrap peak-time rail fares, and you'll clearly see the difference that the Parliament can make to ordinary Scots. Given what I've just said, if we pause for a moment and imagine the harm that would be perpetrated in our country in the absence of a Scottish Parliament, or even if the small degree of self-government our country enjoys was to be reduced further, that's exactly what's happening now and has happened since the UK's vote to leave the EU against Scotland's wishes. The tagline of the Brexit campaign was take back control, but we did not realise they meant take back control of Scotland. If you want an example of that, the decision to hold back money from Scotland and Wales and then represent it as a gift subsequently from the Tory Government is exactly an example of the way they are taking back control. The damage that the UK's internal market act and referred before ad nauseam from Tories, the two governments must co-operate, where was the co-operation when Mrs Sunak announced the changes to net zero? The complete reversal of some of the policies, the impact that has on Scotland was huge, not a word beforehand, that's where there's a lack of co-operation just now. The damage that the internal market act is doing, both to democracy in Scotland and Wales, can't be overstated. Under the act, UK ministers have the power to undermine and overwrite what limited powers our national parliaments have. In some cases, unilaterally and without consent, and the big problem for the Tories is that every year, for as many years as I've been here, they uncritically accept whatever attacks there are on devolution, whatever cuts there are to our budget, whatever latest injustice is done to the interests of the people of Scotland, they will support it every single time, because that's where they take their orders from. The reality is that there's always been and there still are many caveats in the Scotland act that allow the UK government to flex its muscles in Scotland's democracy, such as, of course, with section 35 order. While I appreciate that there are a wide range of views on gender reform in this Parliament, we must surely all stand up for the ability of our national parliament to make decisions, ones indeed enjoyed by enjoying cross-party support in this place, and to implement them, even when it has made decisions that we, as individual MSPs, might not agree with. One of the most shocking things throughout this power grab has been the complicity, I have to say, of the Labour Party, the self-proclaimed party of devolution. As we've heard already, the Labour-run Welsh government has consistently stood up for devolution. Mark Drakeford's done it in a way that they've never heard from Labour benches over here, even from some of the people that used to be at the forefront, as I was in 1983, for a campaign, for a Scottish Assembly, now very silent on the attacks that come from Westminster. As we've heard, Mark Drakeford has spoken out consistently in support or against the attacks on his government and the Welsh Assembly's powers. You do need to conclude now, Mr Brown. I apologise, Presiding Officer, for the last person who spoke for eight minutes. Mr Brown, can you resume your seat a second? It is up to the chair how speaking allocations are allowed. With interventions, I allowed a bit more discretion for those speakers who have taken interventions. I've indicated that, in your instance, having not taken interventions, I allowed a little extra time and was giving you signals to wind up. Have you concluded? We move to Martin Whitefield to be followed by Christine Gray. I'm up to six minutes, Mr Whitefield. I'm very grateful, Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Through some of the heat and fury, there has, in fact, been some very interesting points already articulated. I want to pick up, first of all, on something that we have seen already in this debate, but we also see across the UK. The occasional, and I would suggest sometimes, deliberate mixing up of defending a Parliament and defending a Government. Governments will often say that it is their Parliament that are being attacked. Governments will often be held out as the villains attacking the Parliament. Of course, here in Scotland, it is the people's Parliament, and this Parliament does need protecting. It needs protecting from people who feel that they can override issues and decisions that are taken in this chamber. Those people who are represented in this chamber are represented on the committees. Other people that Scotland voted for to represent them and to hold their Government to account. It is right to say that the Government in Westminster has a similar—and I say quite low—view of Parliament and democracies across the way. I raised with the Sewell convention a number of issues that have been raised. The Sewell convention was first and foremost a convention to allow two mature groups to work together to solve problems that crossed borders. It was very specifically chosen, the wording in relation to the Sewell convention, that it would not ordinarily be used. It would not usually be used. It would not be commonly used. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the past three to four years, the reliance on going to the Sewell convention by the UK Government and it having to ignore the convention that first and foremost this chamber should have an opportunity to pass a legislative consent motion shows in its way one of the challenges going forward. It was raised by a member, what is the Labour Party going to do about it? Of course, we are going to do something about it by talking through with our devolution act if we have the privilege of being in Parliament, in Government at Westminster. It is important that we take the communities of Scotland, the communities of England, the communities of Wales and indeed the communities of Northern Ireland. We have also heard from a number of speakers, including the Minister about... Martin Whitfield is very generous in taking an intervention. His front bench wasn't able to clarify what the Labour Party's position was on the Sewell convention being on a statutory footing. Can I ask Martin Whitfield what is his preference? Should it be on a statutory footing? Martin Whitfield. I'm very grateful. The Devolution Bill will allow the opportunity for the discussion towards that. I was going to say just before the very sensible intervention there that we've been talking about honesty, maturity and grown-up conversations. One of the challenges that I genuinely do see is the use of headlines to pretend or indeed to promote a war between two Governments whose actual sole responsibility is to act in the best interests of the people. We can disagree about the way we should achieve a goal, but we must have an agreement surely. I've heard this so often across this Chamber that we will find poverty, that we will improve health, that we will improve education, that we will improve the betterment of people across the UK. It was welcome for the Minister to say, of course, irrespective of what the future holds, there needs to be a way of facilitating UK-wide movement, UK-wide purchase and UK-wide sales. Without that, this relatively small country in a relatively small island that sits where it does for historic reasons on the line of longitude has to deal with countries around the world. So the Sewell Convention needs to be looked at, but like so many conventions, in indeed I may suggest acts of Parliament, unless they're respected by Governments, then no good that way lies. I am conscious that there have been a myriad of claims to devolution across the Chamber today, but I would remind people that, of course, it was JP McIntosh, the MP for the Lothians resident in the Slothian, who first articulated that idea of actually getting decision-making as close to the people that it affects. I made an intervention on the Minister about the use of devolution beyond the Scottish Parliament and down into local authorities, and down even perhaps beyond local authorities into smaller groups, where people are close to a decision that affects them, where they feel part of that decision-making, where they feel that their voice has been listened to. Even if, at the end of the day, for good reasons it has had to be ignored in the final decision, they feel a part of that process, which, speaking to people across the south of Scotland and interesting through so much of what's coming through the Citizens' Assembly, there is a feeling of distance between the Parliament, the Government and the people of Scotland. I am very conscious of the time, and there's much that I would have liked to speak to, but I do think that it is important that we recognise that if a Parliament is to progress, if a Scottish Government is to succeed, then one of the things it must do is look to move powers out of this place and further down and closer to the people who actually sent us here. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I now call Christine Grahame to be followed by Ross Greer. I am struggling with technology again. 13 May 1999, the inaugural sitting of the recalled Scottish Parliament, I was there. I quote the Presiding Officer, I think that this will entertain you, Deputy. Quotes, one of the worst habits of the House of Commons in the past decade has been the bogus use of points of order. I propose to be very strict. Points of argument are not points of order. Points of order are for the occupants of the chair. If we degenerate into the habit of using them as points of argument, we shall develop some of the worst habits of a place that some of us have been glad to leave. I close quotes. Speaking of leaving, Mr Kerr, entertaining as usual, I understand, has just such plans to pick up bad habits that he brought here with him. I thought I'd pop that into the debate, Deputy Presiding Officer, to remind the chamber, as most of you were not here in 1999, of bad habits developing epidemic proportions. We also thought then, and it turns out naively, that at the very least, devolution was secure, if not in quotes, a process. With 24 years' experience in here, I have never known a time when devolution, this very Parliament's democratic powers, was under such overt attack. In those early days, the LibLab coalition was, of course, proceeding hand-in-hand with Labour at Westminster, and as it was pre-UK 2008, bank collapse, so there was ease of policy collaboration and funding between Westminster and the then-executive. Indeed, while I support the constructive amendment referred to by Labour, I suspect that that would always be, in Westminster's terms, a kind of take-it-or-leave-it deal. Indeed, it was a pant in 1998 in Labour in particular, but the unionists in general thought it would always be the case that they would be in charge, and that even if the SNP did well, it would never be in power. 2007 changed all that, and it has been the story ever since of tensions between devolved and reserved, with Westminster holding the purse strings, and, of course, and attributed to the late Tory MP, Enoch Powell, quotes, power devolved, is power retained, trueism. We are learning that bitter lesson now daily. By the way, I say to Willie Rennie if the Liberals, indeed Labour, are so opposed to the House of Lords, why is it so many failed Labour and Liberal MPs and MSPs are happily sitting there? Devolution statutes has increased our powers, but Devonland planning, for example, in the Scotland Act 1998 was, of course, a mega oversight on behalf of Westminster, so the SNP Government can block, for the time being, the erection of nuclear power stations, though not, of course, the licensing of oil and gas developments at sea, but the Conservatives have never been happy with any of this, and while you can't exercise power through the ballot box, you have to find alternatives. So, no section 30, thank you very much. Even if the overall majority of MSPs in here stand for and for an independence referendum, and once again I turn to the Internal Markets Act, the orphaned child of the European Union and its Internal Markets Act, which has proved an excellent unionist tool for prizing open devolution. It has blocked the deposit return scheme, blocked the banning, the sale of glue traps, snares, shop collars. In fact, its blocking powers are wide-ranging, because if you sell goods or provide services across the UK, then it is the UK Internal Markets Act, which ensures that you can continue to do so. It is with the leave of the UK, if you wish to vary. Would minimum unit pricing have passed here if it had the Internal Markets Act? I doubt it. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Despite Scotland voting 62 per cent remain in 2016 in the EU referendum, the consequences go beyond the all-invasive, indeed pernicious, Internal Markets Act. Money that flowed from the EU to the Scottish Government for devolved projects is now filtered through the Westminster Conservative Government, which determines its destination. Under cover of levelling up, devolution is bypassed, and ever areas favoured by the Tories, such as Dumfries, strangely find themselves recipients with projects which are union-badged and so on. You see, if you can't beat them at the ballot box, try buying votes. Or, as Donald Cameron would say, investing directly, of course I believe in spontaneous debate, Mr Kerr. Mr Kerr, Stephen Kerr? Find the assertion that's just been made by Christine Grahame, utterly shocking, particularly since my central Scotland constituency includes Falkirk, where the people of Falkirk have benefited because of the co-operation that's existed between Falkirk Council and the UK Government in relation to levelling up funds. The idea that Dumfries has somehow been selected apart from others is just nonsense. In fact, when you look at the list of pounds... Mr Kerr, is that the intervention over? Because Mr Grahame has got 45 seconds left. Yes. I know that. I'll take 45 seconds of my day. So whatever happened to democracy with only six Tories at Westminster? And Alastair Jack being one of them. We are having Tory policies, Tory funding directed against the democratic wishes of the Scottish people. So there's a lesson for all who defend democracy in this Parliament. The charge being led and laid at the feet of the Tories they'll use every device they can to undermine what you, the Scottish people, have voted for and use your very own money to do it. What an insult. It is beyond democratic and reveals the vulnerability of devolution. Only independence guarantees you will get the Governments, the policies, the priorities. It might even heaven forbid be a Tory Government, but if you voted for it, you'd have to live with it. That is democracy for Scotland. Thank you, Ms Grahame. I now call Ross Greer to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In what I hope is a useful addition to Christine Grahame's contribution, I can't remember a time before this Parliament existed. I was a nursery when it was reconvened. The greatest sign of devolution's success is how completely normal and undisputed the Scottish Parliament's statuses as the centre of Scottish public life. Not just for people my age and younger, but for those who remember the pre-devolution era as well. Three in four people here believe that Holyrood should have the most influence over how Scotland is run compared to just 14 per cent who believe that of Westminster. Two thirds believe that Holyrood works in Scotland's best interests most or all of the time compared to just one in five who believe the same of Westminster. A majority believe that the Scottish Parliament has given Scotland a stronger voice within the UK, only one in 20 whilst independence is the preferred outcome of half of voters and over two thirds of young voters, abolishing devolution is a fringe position with no significant advocates. Our constitutional debate is about just how powerful the Scottish Parliament should be, devolution or independence. Despite the primacy of this Parliament being the preference of the vast majority of people in Scotland, the UK Westminster Government is engaged in a direct attack on the fundamental principles of devolution and on Scottish democracy itself. A Tory Government that Scotland did not vote for has used a Brexit process that Scotland also rejected to give itself a new power of veto over decisions made by the Parliament and the Government with which the people of Scotland did elect. That is all the internal market act is. A power of veto to be used by UK Governments when Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland makes decisions they do not like. It fundamentally changes, it weakens the devolution settlement. Devolution was established with the consent of the Scottish people through an overwhelming majority vote in a referendum. It was expanded and strengthened by consensus. All parties agreed to the rounds of further devolution seen in the last two decades, but the Tories have shattered that broad consensus since the Brexit process. The IMA is a Westminster power grab. The purpose of devolution is for Scotland to make different choices to those made at Westminster when that difference is the desire of or in the best interests of the people that we represent. Not only does the IMA give UK ministers a sweeping veto power, it is already creating a chilling effect on Scottish policymaking. I will not be the only MSP who has spoken to stakeholders already curtailing their own proposals because of an assumption that their boldest ideas would highly likely be vetoed. It creates a pressure on the Scottish Government itself to scale back on its ambitions and the Government must resist that pressure. Devolution, but within arbitrary limits set by whichever administration is in office at Westminster at any given time, is not what the people of Scotland voted for in 1997 or in any election since to this Parliament or to Westminster. Labour's support for the motion and their very helpful amendment is definitely welcome and I hope it indicates that incoming Labour Government would prioritise repeal and reform of the internal market act and restoring devolution. Today's debate could not be more timely given the letter received by the net zero committee just this morning from the UK Secretary of State, Mr Jack. Mr Jack used the power he now holds as a result of the internal market act to wreck the Scottish deposit return scheme for bottles and cans and the committee have, understandably, saw a UK Government minister to appear before them since July to explain his actions but this has been refused and refused again. Why is Alistair Jack hiding? What is he running scared of? Mr Jack is hiding from the truth. He U-turned on his own manifesto commitment. He tore up the common frameworks agreed between the UK and devolved Governments. He torpedoed Scotland's DRS using his undemocratic powers under the IMA and now he is trying to dodge scrutiny by Scotland's elected representatives. I would be delighted to hear Mr Kerr's support for having the UK Government minister responsible for exercising the IMA come to the Scottish Parliament to simply explain his decision. I rise to point out to the chamber and to Ross Greer in particular that in fact the Secretary of State supported the exemption for a deposit return scheme. He actually said that the UK Government in his office were prepared to help the implementation so the idea that was wrecking seems rather strange notion I must say. Ross Greer. The fact that Mr Kerr couldn't even keep a straight face while he was saying it says it all. The UK Government said that there could be an exemption and Scotland could be granted a deposit return scheme if that deposit return scheme matched the UK scheme in areas for example matching the level of the deposit. Ross Greer said that the UK Government hadn't set and still has not set a deposit. They set deliberately impossible conditions for Scotland's DRS. That is how they sabotaged it. Donald Cameron mentioned the common framework as a sign that devolution works just fine under the IMA. That begs the question then, if Mr Cameron and the Conservatives are so happy with the common framework why did Alistair Jack rip them up and invent a new process as he went along for the DRS? Mr Jack changed his language a number of times. Ross Greer, please resume your seat. I don't want members from sedentary positions across the front benches having a conversation or whatever it is they were actually doing. Ross Greer, please resume. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First Mr Jack claimed that no request for an IMA exemption had been received from the Scottish Government despite two-year paper trail demonstrating otherwise. So then he changed his language to talk about a so-called official request and then a formal request. Under the common frameworks lauded by the Tories this afternoon there's no such thing as an official request for an IMA exemption. Exemption applications are dealt with through an iterative process. Mr Jack invented a new process simply to claim that the Scottish Government hadn't followed it. If that isn't directly undermining devolution then I don't know what is. I wrote to the UK cabinet secretary Simon Case to seek clarity as to whether the UK Government had unilaterally rewritten the common frameworks. I'm happy to credit the record if it came by some method otherwise unknown to me because my letter seems to occupy far more of the UK Government's time than I would have expected. Mr Jack spoke about it and me at length to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster. He wrote to Simon Case about me, he wrote to the Presiding Officer about me and now in refusing the next zero committee's invitation he's sent his previous letter about me to my colleague the committee convener Edward Mountain. I'm a bit baffled about the extent to which I seem to be occupying Mr Jack's mind but could I take this opportunity to suggest to him that he could get it all off his chest to Mr Mountain on the record at a meeting of the Scottish Parliament Committee responsible for scrutinising what actually happened to the DRS. It is essential for this Parliament to defend the powers that the people of Scotland gave us that is exactly what we are doing this afternoon in the face of an unprecedented level of hostility from Westminster. Thank you Mr Greer. I now call Clare Adamson to be followed by Jackson Carlaw. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be speaking because it gets to the heart of why I am here the heart of this place and the heart of our democracy. I am really concerned to have heard this debate dismissed as being about grievance to be irrelevant to not be current to somehow be a waste of our Parliament's time when it actually has been the bread and butter of my committee's work since we were formed as the constitution Europe Excel Affairs and Culture Committee of the Parliament. We have done repeated reports on this, the impact of Brexit on devolution, our UK Internal Market Act report. We are about to publish hopefully in the next three weeks how devolution is changing outside of the EU and it couldn't be more current to the work and the heart of this Parliament. I also feel that people are tone deaf to the concerns that are being raised outwith this chamber. Concerns raised at the inter-parliamentary forum which is the grouping of the Senate, Stormont, Westminster, the House of Lords and this Scottish Parliament to deal with post-Brexit issues. All have raised concerns about how devolution is moving forward. It's also tone deaf to the experts who have given advice to our committee. Michelle Thomson mentioned to Professor McEwen our committee's advice by Professor McOrkindale, Professor Keating. We also have had expert witnesses like Dr Aileen McCarg give evidence about their concerns around these issues and we as a Parliament should not be tone deaf to these concerns. This week I hosted an event in conjunction with the Royal Society of Edinburgh in their Scotland in Europe series. The sixth of events that are continuing to examine what Brexit has meant, what the change in our status in the European Union, what the Internal Market Act has meant for civil society and for Scotland's businesses. That's current. That's the best brains in our country examining exactly what we should be talking about this afternoon. It should not be dismissed as grievance, irrelevant and not what we should be using this chamber's time for. In our committee report on the impact of Brexit and devolution we noted that there were substantive differences between views of the UK Government, Scottish and Welsh Governments regarding future alignment in the EU law. It raised a number of constitutional questions for the committee. To what extent can the UK potentially accommodate four different regulatory environments within a cohesive internal market while complying with international agreements and whether the existing institutional mechanisms are sufficient to resolve differences between our four Governments? Within the UK there are fundamental disagreements regarding alignment with the EU law and, while we all are respected as devolved parliaments. The House of Lords in their recent report on common frameworks and an unfulfilled opportunity has said that it is a matter of serious concern that certain common frameworks do not align with joint ministerial committee for EU negotiation principles. It is particularly significant in relation to respect for the devolution settlements, especially when it comes to addressing the decision-making powers of devolved administrations. Those are the founding principles of the common frameworks programme and are an integral to their success as consensus-based agreements. What is additionally concerning is that this lack of alignment appears not to be the result of deliberate deviation, but a result of insufficient attention to detail in Government. Are we going to be tone deaf to the concerns of the House of Lords Committee and not discuss these matters in this Parliament? My committee has raised general concerns about the extent and scope of UK ministers' delegated powers to legislate in devolved areas and the opportunity for scrutinising these powers in the Scottish Parliament. We should all be concerned as Democrats as Democrats about scrutiny of decision-making by Governments. We should all have the opportunity to scrutinise the decision-making that affects the lives of the people we are here to represent. My committee's view is an important constitutional principle that the Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to effectively scrutinise and exercise legislative powers when the UK Government makes decisions in devolved areas. Otherwise, we might sleep what into executive power making. I could quote widely from our reports. I recommend them to the Parliament and to people to read them and learn about the concerns that are out there. Another thing that was mentioned today that does cause my concern is about the European Government making money in Scotland and we did not make a fuss about it and we did not do that. Nothing was perfect before and we challenged before, especially perhaps in 2013, when Scottish farmers were given an increased amount of money because of historic low-acre payments from the European Union, money that should have come to Scottish farmers, but the UK Government chose to keep to itself and disperse in a different way. We have never been fully happy with what happened with European money and now we need to have the voice in making those decisions. Thank you, Ms Adamson. I now call Jackson Carlaw to be followed by Alistair Allan. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. He is not in the chamber just now but can I start just because I would like to not let the opportunity pass on to John McIntosh who was referred to by Martin Whitfield. As a young active supporter of the Labour Party in the early 1970s I was hugely attracted to the contribution to public life of John McIntosh and his premature death in the 1970s I think was a great loss to public life in Scotland. He had a lot to contribute and a lot that was lost when he was no longer there to do so. The speech with me I've got notes I've been making as I went along because I've heard this argument now from Mr Brown and from many others in the SNP and the Greens about this assault on the powers of the Scottish Parliament and I thought well I'll come along this afternoon because maybe there is something to it and I would like to actually hear what the contributions of those who advocate this view actually are and Mr Hepburn I have always regarded as a fair minded man, we came into this Parliament I was very impressed with the work he did on skills and other areas of government for which he's been responsible but this afternoon he really has done more of an impression of James Robertson justice when he was playing the part of Sir Simon Sparrow in the doctorate large films bouncing up, wiggling his finger and throwing his arms in huge gesticulation at the opposition but for a minister who has so little to do in his portfolio not to have come with a better articulated argument so I've been shown up really by Claire Adamson who I think made a better speech than he did on behalf of the Government Department which he leads, I think was really rather embarrassing and I looked beyond that to see whether more would be said from within the chamber now I remember having arguments with Edward Heath Edward Heath used to go on I thought interestingly about sovereignty and he said what is sovereignty? He said I keep hearing people on the Conservative Party talking about respecting sovereignty he said there is a little blue flame in a cupboard somewhere that we can all go to and pray before as if sovereignty is something tangible you can touch he said sovereignty is something that we were sharing with the European Union it was a view with which I agreed sovereignty is something we share between the two parliaments of the United Kingdom, the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament and I've repeatedly heard Scottish national party speakers talk about the need to respect to respect, to respect and yet not one in any of the contributions actually gave any indication of when they respect the authority of the UK Parliament not even when they are exercising responsibilities which are contained within the Scotland Act on which this Parliament is absolutely founded I was disappointed too in the contribution from Mr Bibby and a little bit from Martin Whitfield who gave one of his statesmanlike addresses while dancing on the head of a pin because Mr Bibby did this kind of classic labour routine with which we're now becoming familiar it's Keir Starmer's everyday chant Anana Sarwar, Scotland Britain needs change we are the change until you ask them what the change is and then you're met with a great big blank canvas in fact so far as we know what the change was going to be Keir Starmer keeps abandoning it and then not replacing it with something else so when asked if he was in favour of something we got it well I hope to have a bill on all that Martin Whitfield actually said on the SEW convention challenge for Mr Robertson the bill will allow us to have a discussion we don't need the bill to have a discussion we could have the discussion this afternoon Mr Whitfield who was asked what he personally thought wasn't able to tell us so once again the old Bibby is saying that they want to protect the internal market they accept the argument of the internal market when asked by Mr Keir well how simply said we're going to have a discussion on it we don't really know and of course it's maybe a forlorn hope but would it be possible to hear what the member's view is on the SEW convention being raised on to a statutory footing will he give us a clear statement of his position Charlie should be not to respond I believe the convention is a convention and should be respected as such so I hope that oh no no James Robertson justice act I think we've heard we've seen enough of this afternoon I also think that the internal market replaces powers which the European Union exercised I mean Mr Greer said he wasn't here in 1990 wasn't here in 2011 either when we had the minimum unit pricing bill come through this parliament Europe I remember going across to Brussels as an opposition spokesman to argue with the European Union that their objections to the minimum unit pricing and it contravening the internal market of the European Union were misguided so the idea that the internal market is something completely new within which Scotland did not have to exist within a united kingdom that also had to exist with powers within the European Union is a nonsense and the internal market the internal market has seen since Brexit over a hundred well I will I will I will give way to Mr Greer will have to be a very brief interview even though he brings all the sincerity I sometimes think of Draco Malfoy to these debates and very briefly please Mr Greer not surprising that Mr Carlaw is a JK Rowling fan these days but does he not understand the distinction between the people of Scotland recognising the limit set by being in the European Union that we consented to be in with the limit set by an internal market act that is the result of a Brexit vote that people in Scotland voted against but the point is the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union I wasn't one of them as Mr Greer knows and I don't know I'm a JK Rowling fan before and always it's just a shame I can be consistent in my support for things whereas Mr Greer cannot but the local but then we come around to the defence of the integrity of this parliament and its powers from two parties that are emasculating the powers of local government local government local authorities elected on manifestos starved of the funds they need to actually implement their own manifesto the powers consolidated here the Scottish Parliament dictating to local government what they can and cannot do by starving them of funds and not a word about the denigration of the powers of local government I thought Mr Rennie did a devastating evisceration to of this parliament's ability to respect decisions of this parliament as well so I came here hopeful I actually thought Claire Adam raised some legitimate points I hope we can find a way to address the points that Claire Adam raised in a constructive engaging manner but it wasn't unfortunately to be found in this debate Thank you Mr Carlaw and I call Alistair Allan Dr Allan I would not want to over sing the praises of political consensus but it is worth recalling for a moment that there did used to be agreement in this parliament one thing at least whatever our differing views about the eventual destination of the devolution process or indeed about the UK internal market act now we were all once signed up to the assumption that it was vital that this 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 this chamber as someone who spent his youth campaigning to become a parliamentary democracy I do feel unsure We have heard today the usual cries from the usual benches about why parliament is supposedly wasting its valuable debating time on constitutional matters rather than looking at Scotland's present impossible budget choices on public services Well let me give two brief responses to those objections. Firstly developed democracies invariably have written constitutions in all those countries questions about constitutional principle are generally considered very relevant indeed. I am unsure why these would be uniquely inapplicable in Scotland The second response would be to say that we quite rightly spend most of our time in here looking at how Scotland's money is spent but from time to time however it is also important that we ask the rules of that political game Now that I appreciate may throw up some difficult questions such as why the total size of a budget here is directed from another place or why the powers we have to borrow or to alter tax are quite so constrained by the UK Government but the point today the relevant point is that since the Brexit referendum of 2016 a whole range of mechanisms have been invented by the UK Government to hem in what this parliament does Those mechanisms were largely undreampt of beyond the realms of hypothesis when this parliament was re-established in 1999 but the changes since 2016 I suppose just go to show the occasionally lauded flexibility of political life in a country without a written constitution but here are a few of the developments we have seen and others have mentioned them the unprecedented use of section 35 powers to veto a bill passed by this parliament effectively intercepting it in the post on its way to the king's desk the Sewell convention the previously unquestioned wisdom that the UK Parliament would never normally legislate in devolved areas without the Scottish Parliament's consent something which has now been breached on such a routine basis that it is doubtful whether the convention could still be said to exist the gradual tendency of the UK Government to find new ways to spend bits of what should be this parliament's budget on our behalf on the things on which they think it should be spent the subsidy control act with all the constraints this imposes on devolved policy making and of course the denial of the democratic and arithmetical reality that the majority of members of this place were elected on a mandate to hold an independence referendum this 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 was indeed true to her word on that but the motion today focuses attention on just one of the new constraints put on this Parliament by the UK the UK Internal Market Act this act gives a UK Government minister the power to take one example to subject Scotland's NHS to what it considers market access principles or it means that any future legislation in Scotland to ban say single use plastics or some measures potentially to tackle obesity or alcohol abuse could be rendered ineffective if a policy difference was created with the rest of the UK Presiding Officer, as I recall it policy differences where these were felt to be needed were one of the very reasons why this Parliament was re-established I certainly cannot imagine back in 1999 anybody anticipating a scenario whereby this Parliament was asking as it is presently likely to have to ask for the UK Government's blessing before we alter the law on rat traps this is particularly surprising given that changing this 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 this Parliament Presiding Officer it's not just the usual pro-independent suspects who warn about all these incursions on this Parliament's power warnings, as we've heard from others come from elsewhere, not least from the STUC and from Mark Drakeford, Wales's Labour First Minister so let's unite as a Parliament Presiding Officer and recognise these attacks for what these are and recognise the UK Internal Market Act for what it is Thank you Dr Allan and we will now move to closing speeches and I call on Fausal Choudhury to close on behalf of Scottish Labour around six minutes please Mr Choudhury Thank you Labour are the party of devolution we have legislated for it enacted it and will continue to advocate for and protect it when we are next in government in the UK the conservative government continue to undermine devolution over the last five years as many members outlined it has repeatedly undermined the, discarded this civil convention unfortunately the UK government's internal market act is no different to this as the minister rightly outlined in his opening speech this was made abundantly clearly when despite both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senate withholding concept the UK government went ahead and passed the bill regardless as Willy Rennie pointed out this debate is about respecting the authority of the Scottish Parliament the power of devolution as Neil Bibby outlined where established by the last UK Labour government in 1988 this act tramples that devolution it undermines the authority of the Scottish Parliament and allows for the lowest legality standard in one parliament to be the rule for all it allows for the potential of UK ministers to ignore or override devolved legislation in developed areas in Scotland policy decision on devolved issue should be made in Scotland Deputy Presiding Officer Donald Cameron rightly spoke about the Scottish Parliament being one of the most powerful devolved legislatures in the world the UK government continue to seek to undermine and roll back the powers of this parliament the internal market act does just that the UK government must evaluate a better way to maintain common standards and safeguards a way that does not undermine devolution here in Scotland or any democratic decisions all of the devolved legislatures in the UK a way that as Kit Brown mentioned does not try and strike the Scottish Parliament of powers that over 70% of the electorate voted for in 1997 as part of the party of devolution, Scottish Labour would seek to further strengthen devolution not undermine or weaken it Scottish Labour would like to see Scotland strengthened as part of the modern and changed United Kingdom as many of as my colleague Martin Whitfield outlined we would like to see power in Scotland based as near as possible to the place in which it is exercised we would like to see power restored into the hands of local authorities and communities that is why the next UK government would transform Westminster and abolish the outdated House of Lord it will transfer power out of Westminster and out to local authorities so that regions can have better control of the issues most impacting them I am very grateful I am writing inferring that the Scottish Labour Party will support the amended motion this evening given we are supporting the Labour Party amendment in which the Labour Party will then be in terms of supporting the repeal of the internal market act Can Foisel Tradry tell the chamber when an incoming Labour Government would repeal the internal market act? Foisel Tradry? I think my colleagues have answered a lot of questions plus I think as for something for the incoming government will be looking into Deputy Presiding Officer Scottish Labour are forced focused on protecting devolution however instead of threatening devolution the Scottish Government are currently doubling down the politics of division many of my colleagues in the chamber today have outlined that Scotland needs to mature governments that will work together Scottish Labour believes that the interest of the people of Scotland are best served when both the Scottish and UK Government work together in cooperation The Scottish Government have continually made relations with the UK Government strained instead of finding consensuals when the two government cannot reach agreement on anything the people of Scotland are the ones that suffer with regards to the internal market act the two government must seek to work together the UK Government must find a better way to regulate the market that does not undermine devolution a rule that allows for the lowest regularity standard in one Parliament to be the standard of all discarded devolution and authority of the other legislative bodies across the world Labour is focused on strengthening devolution so that Scotland is a fresh start I now call on Alexander Stewart to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives up to seven minutes please Thank you I'm delighted to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and I will be supporting the amendment in the name of Donald Cameron looking at the title of this debate protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament a bystander could have been forgiven that this debate might have been a celebration of the powers of this Parliament and of the accomplishments of devolution there might even have thought it would be a discussion about the importance of devolution and how the powers of this Parliament can be used to improve the lives of the people of Scotland such a debate would only have been appropriate given the Parliament what is the most powerful devolved legislator in the world and we've heard that already today however for someone who knows the SNP Government well enough and we know that that is far from what we've seen today by this point these benches are wise and have become wise to the ways in which the Scottish Government always seems to tackle and have a same pattern and sure enough the motion of today's debate contains no surprises we have heard nothing new from the SNP Government today this afternoon happy to do so in the motion there's no surprises but I personally am very surprised at the Labour Party's position in respect to this motion if amended by their amendment does he agree with me that this puts Keir Starmer in a most awkward situation where he's against the internal markets act but his party have got nothing to replace it with I thank my colleague for Stephen Kerr for the intervention it would very much be the fact this afternoon that it would appear that the Labour Party wished to repeal the act and there doesn't seem to be anything corresponding to come back I've already said the Government today are very much there's no surprises we've seen grievance filled arguments brought before in this chamber and they continue to be there these attempts to convince the Scottish public that the powers of this Parliament are under threat are just as empty and just as without substance as they've always been this afternoon we have heard in a few moments I wish to make some more progress I will eventually talk to the Government about prioritising the powers of this Parliament however from the SNP protecting the powers of the Scottish Parliament even means objecting to UK Government investment in Scotland just because the money is being spent in devolved areas happy to give way to the minister I'm delighted that a member in the Conservative benches has given way he mentions the issue he mentions the issue people of Scotland need to be made aware of the threats to the Scottish Parliament that seems to dismiss explain why then is the case that there was only one breach of the school convention between the onset of devolution and 2018 which was inadvertent and remedied and nine intervening period of time I thank the minister for the intervention we've already heard much about the school convention this afternoon and I think that Jackson Carlaw was the best to put it into a convention that the convention is that it is nothing more than a convention of course this is despite the fact that the ability of the UK Government to make investment in areas is very much part of that devolution settlement similarly we have heard familiar complaints about the UK use of section 35 despite the fact that the powers written into this devolution are very much there there are however certain things that are I'd like to make some more progress which are absent from today's motion for example there's no mention of the Supreme Court's damning environment of 2021 on the UNCR bill which talks about the SNP directly and deliberately exceeding the powers of this Parliament when drawing up that bill happy to take the intervention I wonder if the member would reflect on evidence given by Philip Ryfroff the permanent secretary at the department of exiting the EU 2017 to 2019 and the senior civil servant cabinet office official on devolution from 2012 to 2019 who told our committee you have to see Brexit as a breakpoint in all sorts of ways including with regard to the management of relationships between the four governments and the United Kingdom it will require reconfiguration of how those relations are managed in the face of the overwhelming evidence that there is problems how can the Conservatives continue to be tone deaf to this narrative I thank the member for her length intervention but I'm sorry none of us are tone deaf to it the United Kingdom as a body made the decision to leave the European Union and that at the end of the day the SNP have never come to cut with that mention you've made the point that Scotland didn't like it but the United Kingdom did and the United Kingdom at the moment is still the United Kingdom nor does it mention the fact that judgments having been made two years ago it's only this week that we're getting some of the timetable for the reconstruction stage of that bill when a party deliberately exceeds the power of this Parliament and then fails to use the powers of this Parliament to fix things as quickly then there is lack of credibility real lack of credibility I'd like to talk about some of the points that have been made by other people as I said Labour today have talked about repealing the act and we look forward to seeing how that progresses in the time that we have my colleague Donald Cameron spoke about the idea of this debate was more of a deflection about where we are and the United Kingdom working together with the Holyrood Government is what people in the country want to see they want to see that they're stronger that there is an idea that trade is taking place those points were very valid and also about the funding in the past that did come from the EU there was no discussion about funding coming from the UK being any different the UK had £2.4 billion into Scotland over the last few years now will there any talked about and I think be some very valid points about respecting the authority of this Parliament and gave a very good example about the freedom of information situation that once again exposes where they are making rules when it suits them themselves it's where we are debates that do nothing more than controversy and do not respect it my colleague Stephen Kerr made a very powerful debate and speech this afternoon and he talked about the scrutiny and the governance that's not taking place and talked about the milestones and the governance that should be talking about my colleague Jackson Carlaw also talked about being fair-minded and I think that was quite hard to find that we had that fair-mindedness within this chamber he may have that in his debate in his organisation and his structure but we've not seen that and then to have Labour make some of the comments they've made about how they would manage or repeal the act I think are for us to look forward to see where it takes us in the future so in concluding my colleagues have highlighted the real problems that the current Scottish Government is failing to use the powers at their disposals effectively this government claimed it wants to protect the powers of this Parliament for the Scottish public however it's clear could we not have conversations across the front benches please it's very discourteous to the member who has the floor the Scottish public however are clear that they wish to see that the powers that are happening here are not squandered the SNP have and continue to squander these powers they squander resources and they squander opportunity they should be using the powers to support Scotland's economy justice, education and environment and enhancing our country rather than squandering them and I call on Cabinet Secretary Angus Robertson to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government up to nine minutes please Mr Robertson thank you very much it's a genuine pleasure to wind up this debate where we have discussed at motion which draws attention to the fact that this Parliament the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senate refuse to give consent to the internal market act of concerns over its potential to undermine democratic decisions of devolved legislatures that we agree that those fears have been realised to the detriment of people here in Scotland and that the devolution settlement has been fundamentally rolled back by the act and called to the repeal of the internal market act and for the UK Government to stop taking back control to Westminster of policy decisions in Scotland eminently sensible statement of fact which should command the support of members right across this chamber and I pay tribute to my colleague Jamie Hepburn who I think made a very powerful and persuasive opening speech in regards to the erosion the erosion of the Sewell convention and in terms of the implications of the internal market act I assure to listen to much of the speech from the Labour Front bench from Neil Bibby whose party's amendment today calls on the UK Government to develop a more consensual means of preserving common standards and safeguards across the UK and that does not undermine devolution in any part of the UK in one slight criticism I would say that at some point the Scottish Labour Party is going to have to be clear about what it will or will not do with the Sewell convention and frankly the only way it's going to work given what we have learned about how it is abused by the UK Conservative Party the only way for that to work is on a statutory basis and I hope the Scottish Labour Party will move to support that in time we also heard some very positive contributions Presiding Officer this afternoon from Michelle Thompson from Keith Brown, from Martin Whitfield again one minor criticism also on the Scottish Labour Party's inability to commit to incorporating Sewell on a statutory basis we heard powerful interventions from Christine Grahame, from Ross Greer from Claire Adamson who reminded the chamber now I want to make this point who reminded the chamber that the advice that her committee has received from Scotland's leading constitutional academic so what we are debating this afternoon are well established facts about the undermining of the evolution I give way to the Conservative member I don't think the cabinet secretary was actually here listening to the debate he agreed with the member for South Scotland his whole speech was a criticism of the SNP's centralising powers and their tendency to want to gather everything into the centre and he was calling for and I support this the evolution power to communities to the people where they live it's the very opposite of what the SNP stands for was the cabinet secretary listening to any of the speeches that were offered today well in summing up I clearly am reflecting on all of the contributions and I will be coming to his I will be coming to his shortly I'd like to pay tribute to Dr Alasdair Allan for his contribution and to Faisal Chowdry although again I raised a question with him about when a Labour Government would be repealing the internal market again there's going to have to be some commitment on that front as well as there is on Sewell now in terms of the contribution from colleagues that I would describe as being disappointing of course I need to start with the learned gentlemen on the front bench for the Conservative party and I would concentrate on what he didn't say because obviously it's important what we do say but it's also of note what he didn't say himself. He didn't or he couldn't condemn the override of the Scottish Parliament or the the Senate. Something which as has been pointed out a number of times Mark Drakeford has been able to do very powerfully I quote from him speaking giving evidence to the House of Lords constitution committee on the 17th of July 2021 where he said when it becomes inconvenient for the UK Government to observe Sewell they just went ahead and rode rush-odd through it and more recently I'm afraid the Sewell convention has withered on the vine. He has been prepared to be outspoken the Conservative party should be as well. Mr Cameron also didn't, couldn't or wouldn't criticise the internal market act and it's frankly malign impact on devolution. He prayed the national farmers union I think in aid at one stage it would be helpful perhaps to read into the record the views of the national farmers union of Scotland their written evidence from Johnny Hall when this follows it is the clear view of the NFU Scotland that the principles now embedded in the UK internal market act 2020 pose a significant threat to the development of common frameworks and to devolved policy. Now on the disappointing, oh sorry I can't omit a point now made from both members of the front bench where firstly on the comparison with the European Union which is spurious because the difference between UK devolution as it now is not functioning well and European Union additionality was that within the European Union Scottish legislature sat and had oversight of EU spending in the European Parliament and those funds were of course dispersed through the Scotland office now Scottish government and in terms of the most powerful Parliament, devolved Parliament in the world claim will come as news especially in the day of German unity to anybody who knows anything about government in Germany where the German bonus lender are involved in federal decision making. I could go on to speak a bit about Willie Rennie's contribution once the proud party of home rule but had nothing positive to say describing these constitutional questions as being naughty debates. There wouldn't even acknowledge that his party opposed devolution. Jackson Carlaw said that Seoul should be respected as such the point is it's not and his party should reflect on that and as opposed to one point to Alexander Stewart saying there is nothing to replace the internal market of activity which is just factually inaccurate because of course there are common frameworks and they were established to do just that before the Trojan horse of the internal market act was passed by the UK Government. Since 2016 we have seen a range of actions from the UK Government which have damaged devolution and have damaged the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The UK Government as we have heard has passed legislation without the Scottish Parliament's agreement that reduces the Parliament's powers and allows UK ministers to make further changes unilaterally such as making provisions of healthcare subject to the UK internal market act. It has given powers to UK ministers to intervene directly in matters within the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament again without the Scottish Parliament's agreement. It has undermined the Seoul Convention that the Westminster Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolve matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It has now done so on 11 occasions and has now turned the Seoul Convention on its head by insisting on consent as a condition for lodging agreed amendments that we have heard on the energy bill. The UK Government has blocked legislation on devolved matters passed by the Scottish Parliament for the first time. It has taken forward legislation that puts at risk EU laws on environmental protection, food standards and other devolved matters through the EU retained law reform bill. It has taken a direct role in devolved policy and decisions on public spending on devolved matters by passing the Scottish Parliament and diverting funding from priorities here. There is always a risk that the Brexit process would result in greater centralisation in Whitehall and Westminster. Fundamental changes can now be seen in the relationship between the Governments and the Parliaments of Westminster and Holyrood. Incidentally, also the Welsh Senate, obviously not led by the Scottish National Party. The view that I am sharing today is shared by the Government of Scotland. If there was a functioning Government in Northern Ireland, we would be sharing the views with them as well. Far from the Scottish Government provoking constitutional clashes, it is the UK Government that has intervened in devolved areas either to prevent the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament progressing with our policies, whether recycling or gender recognition to impose UK Government policy. In conclusion, the UK Government's approach increasingly asserts Whitehall and Westminster's authority over the Scottish Parliament and the Government in a way that has not been previously seen. The Scottish Government is clear that the internal market act should be repealed and we invite the Parliament to support that view. The threats of the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the undermining of the institutions of devolution are real and they are urgent. They should concern everyone who supports a Parliament regardless of their party allegiance. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on protection of Scottish Parliament powers and it's now time to move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is an announcement by the Economy and Fair Work Committee on inquiry into a just transition for the north-east and Murray. I call on Claire Baker, convener of the committee to make the announcement. I welcome the opportunity to highlight the second part of the Economy and Fair Work Committee's Just Transition Inquiry. The first part of this work focused on the Grangemouth area and the committee report was published in June. The second part will look at the north-east and Murray and will consider whether the Just Transition Fund is achieving its aims and how a Just Transition can be achieved which benefits both industry, workers and communities. Evidence sessions will commence after recess and members may know that our committee meeting on Monday 6 November will take place in Aberdeen in the council chambers. I do think that it is important for committees where it is possible and relevant to take the opportunity to formally convene outside of Edinburgh and I thank the Parliament for the support and facilitating this. As part of the committee's work in Aberdeen, we will also visit Aberdeen South Harbour and hold an informal engagement event with local people from the north-east and Murray. If you would like any more details about the inquiry, please do contact our clerks. Thank you. We will now move to decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 10703.1 in the name of Donald Cameron which seeks to amend motion 10703 in the name of Jamie Hepburn on protection of Scottish Parliament's powers be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed and therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.