Chamber and committees

There are some statistics that illustrate Mr Adam’s point. In economic terms, the UK Government’s own figures estimate that this deal will add £9 billion to the UK’s national income by 2040, which represents just 0.2 per cent of gross domestic product. That must be compared with the loss in GDP caused by Brexit, which is estimated to be 20 times that—4 per cent of GDP. Those estimates are from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which, as I am sure all members realise, is an organisation that is worth listening to. The point that Mr Adam is making is very real.

I stand by everything that I said in the chamber in that debate.

My understanding is that the agreement on the roll-over on fisheries and its length was not finalised before the summit weekend and, indeed, that it was raised on the weekend that the agreement was reached. How do we know that? We know that from discussions in Brussels, not from the UK Government.

I will continue in my explanation of the context to the process, which I think is very important. At the meeting on 12 May, at which Nick Thomas-Symonds said to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments that the UK Government was making progress in all of those areas, I and colleagues said that we would wish to have not only a readout, without detail and documentation, but rather detail and documentation.

Until I raised it, the word “fisheries” was not mentioned by the UK Government. There was a readout of what would constitute part of an EU-UK agreement at a summit, but it was only when I asked—after a lengthy introduction and scene setting from the UK Government that did not mention fishing—what the UK Government’s position was, that it was mentioned. To say that I had an elliptical reply would be an understatement. There was no detail. Euphemisms for stability were used, but there was no mention of roll-over or of the length of time for which there should be such a thing. My position is that that is not a reset—it is not a proper relationship, it is not respectful and it is not how we should do business, full stop.

When the United Kingdom was in the European Union, there were Scottish Government officials and officials from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and other organisations, in Brussels, sitting in rooms in which they were able to inform the process for agreements that were being reached. Documentation was shared, and there was a conversation about process. With this agreement, there was not.

With regard to other issues, we were saying in principle that we wished the UK to rejoin Erasmus+ and to re-associate with the creative Europe programme. We literally had the summit, an agreement and a read-out that said, “We have agreed this”. I then said something like, “What happened to Creative Europe?” and the answer that I got was, “Well, that just did not happen.” We are not clear on why it did not happen. Was it because the UK tried and it did not happen? Did the European Union side bring it up and the UK said no? We do not know.

The process is not working properly. The substance, in significant part, is welcome. It is important that we understand both those things in order to ensure, when things are perhaps more challenging, that the process is robust enough to get us through all that. I have made that point to the UK Government subsequently. Process matters, and that should not involve keeping people in the dark and telling them after the event.

Sorry—there is an additional fact that I should add, because there will no doubt be a follow-up question in relation to interministerial relations between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government in important policy areas. Mr Brown mentioned fishing. In the normal run of events, that should have been discussed at the interministerial group involving Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and the UK’s Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The last three meetings of that group in the run-up to the agreement were cancelled, all by the UK side, so there was not a substantive meeting on that.

On culture, the last interministerial group meeting took place in May 2024 and since then, further meetings have been delayed repeatedly, so no discussion was possible, in the run-up to the summit, on the creative Europe programme and on the mobility of touring artists.

Is that really how we want to do intergovernmental relations? No, it is not.

I totally agree with Mr Harvie. As a matter of course, we should expect to have good working relations all the time. Of course, one might disagree about things or have different priorities, but where there is a temptation for Parliaments or Governments not to explain themselves to others, because they do not have to, that is a route that, unfortunately, other Governments or Parliaments might choose.

Mr Harvie mentioned Wallonia, which is a very interesting case in point. Unlike the UK, Wallonia and Flanders have devolved rights in relation to treaties. We do not have those here. Although people keep talking about the Scottish devolution settlement being among the strongest in the world, that is a very good example of where it is not. As a result of the treaty involvement of both Wallonia and Flanders, the Belgian federal Government has to work as well as it can with Wallonia and Flanders—because it has to. That is the challenge that we have; in some areas, we operate on the basis of conventions, à la Sewel, for example. That is why we are having discussions about whether that convention should actually be put on a statutory basis.

At some point, the convener will no doubt want to ask about the progress that has been made in relation to the UK Government’s approach to the Sewel convention. A memorandum of understanding was promised, and I am happy to come back at any stage if you wish to discuss that, convener.

Well, I imagine that a UK Government that says that it is in favour of a reset and of being transparent would give evidence in public to a committee such as this, to explain how it is doing things. The record would then show an explanation of why we are dealing with the systematic cancellation of intergovernmental relations meetings, in advance of important issues. If the answers to the closed questions that I mentioned before are unsatisfactory, or if the assurances that are being given in public about how things will be different are not actually being delivered on, I would not rule anything out in trying to help things to get better.

For the record, I want everybody to understand that that is not just the position of the Scottish Government. It is a concern that is shared by colleagues in the Welsh Labour Party, the Sinn Féin First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Democratic Unionist Party Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. We do not find ourselves alone in this situation. If things do not change, we will have to look closely at how we make them change.

It turns out that it most certainly was not gossip and hearsay, given the conversations that have taken place subsequently. When one is in London and speaking to the European Union’s representative office in the UK, one can ask about much of this—it would be open to the committee to do that—and it turns out that what I have described is exactly how things progressed. One might even be able to read about it on the front pages of some newspapers, too.

I will revert to the committee.

I agree with Mr Harvie that structural changes are needed in a devolved context, although I do not believe that devolved governance is the optimal solution for Scotland’s governance. I agree that, unless there is a requirement on the UK Government to have better intergovernmental relations, that will too often, sadly, just not be a priority. That is not good enough.

—and the officials who work there speak with the UK mission to the European Union and, as is the way in the way Brussels works, with officials from right across the institutions as a matter of course. That is what all representative offices in Brussels do, and it is through those channels that one often hears about where progress is being made. Is that the optimal way of finding out about progress in negotiations? No, it is not. I am sorry that that was the extent of the information that we had because the UK Government was not sharing information with us.