2. To ask the Scottish Government whether the United Kingdom Government has communicated any intention to provide exemptions to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 in relation to legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. (S6O-02229)

T he United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 radically undermines the devolution settlement in Scotland and was imposed on this Parliament without its consent. We can see the outcome most clearly with the deposit return scheme—the bill that this Parliament passed is now threatened by the 2020 act, placing the whole scheme at risk, including significant industry investment. Regrettably, the UK Government has yet to reach a decision on excluding Scotland’s deposit return scheme from the act.

We have been engaging with the UK Government on this issue for nearly two years now. UK ministers have acknowledged that we have followed the agreed exclusions process. We cannot wait any longer in providing businesses with the clarity that they urgently need. We need a positive decision from the UK Government, and we need it now.

I have previously welcomed the creation of 140 new jobs in Motherwell as part of the DRS. Those are just some of the hundreds of jobs that are being created across Scotland as a result of the scheme. However, the jobs are now at risk because of the UK Government’s deliberate delay in excluding the scheme from the 2020 act.

Many other issues are being considered that might need such an exclusion, including a potential ban on disposable vapes. The common frameworks are meant to provide a forum for timely and collaborative decision making. Does the Cabinet secretary agree that the DRS experience has shown those to be ineffective and that that could put at risk some of the public health and environmental measures that we are trying to take?

I agree with the member. The Scottish Government warned that the 2020 act would undermine devolution and that it would create confusion and uncertainty for businesses. Sadly, we have been proven right, as the example from the member’s region shows.

Brexit has been used as a pretext for eroding devolution and the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The common frameworks offer one of the few options that are available to us for engagement on mitigating some of the effects of a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for.

The Scottish Government has spent a great deal of time trying to make common frameworks work as intended. We now need the UK Government to show a similar commitment to take full account of the work that has been undertaken collaboratively through the common framework, to agree to an 2020 act exclusion and to lift the threat of the act from Scotland’s deposit return scheme.

Does the Cabinet secretary believe that the tensions arising from the 2020 act demonstrate that, under Westminster’s control, Scotland’s devolution settlement can be undermined at the whim of the UK Government, particularly by any hypothetical Secretary of State for Scotland who might harbour a scarcely concealed desire to act like a governor-general?

As I have noted, a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for is being used to roll back the powers of a Parliament that Scotland did vote for. The 2020 act, which was imposed on this Parliament without its consent, is the result. Despite that, we have acted in good faith to mitigate the act’s worst effects, and we have been engaging through common frameworks to that end. That is what we are doing in respect of Scotland’s deposit return scheme. We need the UK Government to finally recognise the evidence that has been gathered through the common framework, to agree to an exclusion and to remove the threat that the act poses to the scheme.

UK ministers have acknowledged that the Scottish Government has followed the agreed procedure. The fact that we are still waiting for a decision shows the vulnerability of the devolution settlement and the ability of the Scottish Parliament to use its powers to benefit the people of this country.