Seòmar agus comataidhean

At last, I have been called courteous. I think that the member has just walked into a bear trap: the great big promise from Anas Sarwar was that there would be no austerity under Labour. How is that for a broken promise?

Will the member give way?

Strangely enough, I agree, but that is for a debate on independence.

The proposed new UK legislation would massively expand the powers of the Scotland Office. It was started by the Conservatives but, of course, Labour is just following happily in their footsteps, like a puppy. Does it matter? Of course it does. Policies on domestic issues such as poverty are made here in Scotland, for Scotland, by the Scottish people. Perhaps we should all repeat the mantra that power devolved is power retained. We are watching this happen before our very eyes. There is not even an attempt by any UK Government—Tory or Labour—to hide it.

I will finish with a quote from Tony Blair, because we seem to be seeing Blair policies again.

Certainly—I am delighted to do so, although I do hope that it is worth while.

Heavens, I seem to have stirred a bit of interest. I will take an intervention from Patrick Harvie.

I beg your pardon.

Does the member therefore consider it, to put it very—[Interruption.]

This is from just before when the Scottish Parliament was established. He explained:

“I don’t see what the problem is. We will not raise the basic or top rate of income tax. That is our commitment here in Scotland as much as it is our commitment in England and that will remain ... The Scottish Labour Party is not planning to raise income tax and once the power is given it is like any parish council, it’s got the right to exercise it”.

He said what he really thought of the proposed Scottish Parliament. A “parish council” seems to be the route that Labour is taking. That is what it really thinks of us. We must remember that what the UK says it gives, it can take away.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I apologise to Daniel Johnson and to the other members in the chamber for my incompetence in handling my phone. I am very sorry—I genuinely am.

You caught me on the hop.

I thank Kenneth Gibson for lodging the motion, the subject of which seems, on the surface, to be esoteric, in legalese and, true to Gibson form, very lengthy. However, I say to Mr Kerr that it is significant, not meaningless.

By way of background, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Green Party rejected the UK Internal Market Act 2020 in the House of Commons, and it received the largest Government defeat in the House of Lords since 1999.

The UK Government did not seek legislative consent from the devolved legislatures, and the Scottish Parliament debated and voted on a motion to refuse consent, which, again, was supported by the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish National Party.

Although the 2020 act has had a far-reaching effect on the devolved Administrations, there was no discussion or agreement with them. I say to Mr Kerr, who is looking for dispute resolution, that the key to that is mutual consent, respect and partnership—none of which happened in all of those years under the Conservative Government.

What does the 2020 act do? It is best to give some examples, which are all connected to the sale and price of certain goods in Scotland, such as the banning of fireworks, vapes, rodent glue traps and animal snares, and matters that relate to safety and animal welfare—policy issues that are reserved to this Parliament. Much though we might have wanted to ban the sale of glue traps or snares, even if there were a unanimous vote by this Parliament, a ban on their sale could not be introduced unless the UK Government mandated it. The way around that would be for us to ban their use, which would make it pretty pointless to sell or buy them, but that should not be necessary. Fortunately, England has banned the use of glue traps. Indeed, the rules on sales and pricing could have impacted on alcohol minimum unit pricing but, as my colleague Kenneth Gibson has already said, that measure was already in force and predated the 2020 act and, therefore, is exempted.

Anything that could be deemed by the UK to cause a barrier—and I will stick to trade—within the UK would fall foul of the legislation, such as price differentials. That would be the case even if, for the best of reasons, Scotland wanted those price differentials. The 2020 act is an example of the UK policing devolution, and I do not think that it is by accident.

When a devolved policy has the backing of this democratically elected Parliament, if it affects sales or prices—either upwards or downwards—compared with England, why should that policy require the affirmative nod from the UK or even be blocked? It is an erosion of devolution.

As well as the internal market’s penetration into devolved areas, there is the reallocation of funds that previously came directly to the Scottish Government from the EU and are now allocated directly by the UK Government to communities, which bypasses our devolved responsibilities—Michael Gove labelled that as “levelling up”. That is bad enough, but it is compounded by the fact that Scotland voted by 62 per cent to remain and, therefore, clearly rejected Brexit. There was a face-saving announcement that those funds would be dispersed in partnership, but there was no partnership and there is still none. There is no new respect for devolution.

For example, the restrictions on winter fuel payments were announced and imposed without so much as a phone call to the Scottish or Welsh Governments. Under Labour, the Scottish Office, under the stewardship of Ian Murray, has its own funds for investment. The figure is £150 million, and, according to the oracle for Labour, the Sunday Mail,

“Labour is set to change the law within months to allow Scottish Secretary Ian Murray to bypass Holyrood and directly fund anti-poverty schemes.”

Incidentally, he could have passed that over to the Scottish Government to allow all pensioners to access the winter fuel payment, but of course he did not.

The proposed new UK legislation—

Unfortunately, Mr Kerr, you are an expert in bleating, and that intervention was not very worth while.