Indeed, it is.

I encourage the member and other colleagues who have views on how governance in the UK might be improved to share them. I believe that the issue has been addressed in part by the Brown commission, but it needs to be made explicitly clear that there are to be no exceptions to the Sewel convention. That would certainly be progress. I have not read in the commission’s conclusions calls for an absolute endorsement of the Sewel principle in all circumstances, but that would be extremely welcome.

I go back to the committee’s—

I ask Mr Swinney to forgive me, as I will overrun if I take an intervention at this stage.

The committee’s report states:

“It is essential that we have the opportunity to hear from the UK Minister for Intergovernmental Relations to discuss the findings of this report”.

To date, the committee has received no response, despite the urgency of its request and an indication of the importance with which the matter is viewed in Whitehall.

The report also raises concerns about the rapid growth in the use of delegated powers, which allows the UK Government to legislate in devolved areas. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 is just one example of that. As the committee notes, that is a recipe for confusion, a lack of transparency and a blurring of the lines of accountability.

We recognise the merit in the committee’s recommendations regarding new intergovernmental agreements on how the use of delegated powers should work, particularly in their recognition of

“the constitutional principle that devolved Ministers are accountable to their respective legislatures for the use of powers within devolved competence”

and the fact that the

“Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within devolved competence.”

Those principles are fundamental to the effective operation of the devolution settlement. On one level, they are so self-evident that they should not require further explanation.

As I have noted, the Scottish Government sees merit in the recommendation that agreement be reached on the use of delegated powers by UK ministers in devolved areas. However, new or revised rules, structures and agreements can be fully effective only if all parties are committed to following them. That means following the rules consistently, not just when it suits. It means respecting the important principles of collaborative working that were agreed by all four Governments as part of the review of intergovernmental relations. It means respecting the Scottish Parliament and having a shared interest in making the devolution settlement operate as intended, in the way that the people of Scotland voted for decisively in 1997.

The report argues that there is consensus among the UK and devolved Governments that common frameworks provide appropriate mechanisms for managing regulatory divergence across the UK. Although I acknowledge that the UK Government remains formally committed to the development and implementation of common frameworks, I respectfully challenge the committee on one point. If the UK Government shares the view that frameworks offer the right mechanism for managing post-EU exit regulatory divergence in the UK, why on earth did it impose the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on this Parliament? The act is incompatible with the principles and approaches of common frameworks, as it replaces respect for devolution and progress by agreement with unilateral decision making and the undermining of devolution by strength. Scotland’s deposit return scheme is the clearest example that we have seen of how work on the common frameworks has been undermined.

Common frameworks and the principle of respect for devolution and the powers of the Parliament that underpin them could be the basis for a respectful and co-operative approach to devolved regulatory policy. Common frameworks still offer an alternative to the unworkable centralisation, rigidity and disregard for devolution that are embodied by the 2020 act, but only if all parties are prepared to adhere to the rules. It is hard to see—at least at present—how the committee’s recommendation of a new common frameworks memorandum of understanding would operate if some actors are not prepared to play by the agreed rules.

The committee is correct in noting that all of that means that the Scottish Parliament faces an unprecedented set of challenges in performing its vital scrutiny role. The challenge of adapting to EU exit was always going to be vast in scale and complex, as, equally, were the demands on Scotland’s Parliament. However, where we are today is the result of choices. It did not have to be like this. It was a choice to proceed with the folly of a hard Brexit and to ignore the wishes of people in Scotland. It was a choice to use Brexit to launch a sustained campaign to undermine the powers of this Parliament. It is a choice to simply ignore agreed constitutional norms, processes and structures wherever and whenever they are considered to be inconvenient. In those circumstances, devolution cannot function as intended and this Parliament cannot operate as it should.

I congratulate the committee again on its excellent report, and I hope that, across the chamber and in all parties, we can work as parliamentarians to address the vital questions that it raises.

It might be helpful to the member and others in the chamber if I were to provide some background and context. In April, the former Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, wrote to me and issued inaccurate and misleading guidance to United Kingdom overseas missions regarding the Scottish Government’s international engagements.

I wrote to Mr Cleverly seeking agreement and consultation on how the guidance could be amended or withdrawn. I did not receive a reply. In October, I received another letter from Mr Cleverly, which raised the matter of a meeting between the First Minister and the Prime Minister of Iceland. That letter also contained inaccuracies. I wrote back to Mr Cleverly, but again I did not receive a reply.

This week, I received yet another letter, this time from the new Foreign Secretary, Lord David Cameron, which included the threat that was referenced by Dr Alasdair Allan. That was all the more surprising as, a few days earlier, Lord Cameron cancelled a meeting that we were due to have this week to discuss those issues.

The Scottish Government’s only interest in pursuing our international work is promotion of Scotland’s interests. Yesterday, we published detailed evidence setting out the way that Scottish Government international offices support trade, jobs and vital business connections. The report also refers, in positive terms, to the working relationship with the FCDO in overseas posts. I look forward to continuing to promote Scotland’s interests and to working with UK Government counterparts.

First, Dr Allan was quoting from the explanatory notes to the Scotland Act 1998, so his question is a statement of fact. In answer to the question specifically, no Scottish Government minister has or would purport to speak for the United Kingdom or to reach agreements that commit the UK. I asked James Cleverly for any examples of such a thing happening. He said that he had none.

We invite FCDO officials to attend our formal meetings. It is impossible to predict where and when informal meetings will happen during large-scale events such as the 28th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP28. To threaten Scotland’s interests on the basis of those discussions, arranged at pace, is ridiculous.

Anyone who doubts the benefits of our work overseas should take a look at the report on the work of Scotland’s international network, which highlights the real benefits that are being delivered to Scotland now. Trying to limit that work will only reduce the opportunities for Scottish businesses, cultural organisations and individuals, and, in so doing, will impact negatively on the lives of us all.

Donald Cameron has brought up the letter of the law. The Scotland Act 1998 is very clear. Let me again share with members what the notes say:

“The reservation of international relations does not have the effect of precluding the Scottish Ministers and officials from communicating with other countries, regions, or international or European institutions, so long as the representatives of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Ministers do not purport to speak for the United Kingdom or to reach agreements which commit the UK.”

I have always been happy to be accompanied by representatives of the UK embassies or high commissions whenever I undertake international meetings. That is the position of the Scottish Government. It is unfortunate that, sometimes, FCDO officials do not make themselves available.

In his question, Donald Cameron missed out the Scottish child payment, which has been widely applauded not only in Scotland but furth of Scotland, as an extremely significant intervention that is helping to lift thousands of children out of poverty.

Of course, there will always be challenges with a significant administrative change. I would be happy to get my ministerial colleague who is responsible for the agency to write to Donald Cameron to give him further details. However, it would be churlish not to acknowledge the significant advantages that have been gained by Scotland having not the most significant but a significant intervention in social security—which, incidentally, the UK Government is not prepared to match.

I hope that, as I do, Pam Duncan-Glancy considers that the organisations that are funded through Creative Scotland do exactly that, as do our national performing companies and the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland.

I draw Pam Duncan-Glancy’s attention to the latest funding round of the youth music initiative’s formula fund, through which Glasgow City Council received support of £540,644 to offer music tuition in schools across the city. That includes tuition by organisations including the National Piping Centre, Music Broth, National Youth Orchestras of Scotland and A C Projects, which all receive funding.

I hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy agrees that all those organisations provide tremendous additional benefit to the arts and culture scene in Glasgow, which is vibrant and deserves the support of everybody, including the public of Glasgow, whom I encourage to attend all culture and arts events that are put on by the organisations that we have been discussing.

I hear very well what Neil Bibby is saying. Our universities are autonomous of Government. That is a statement of fact. I have noted very carefully the points that have been made by the consuls general who have written to the University of Aberdeen, where I was very proud to study.

I have also noted the intervention of Miguel Berger, the German ambassador to the UK, on language teaching. He will appreciate that language teaching and learning are very close to my heart. As someone who speaks two languages, and who speaks to my children a language that is not English, I understand the value of languages.

We should be extremely seized of making sure that we do everything that we can to provide the appropriate level of teaching right through our school and university systems. That is the subject of discussion between me and ministerial colleagues, and I will be happy to raise the matter with UK Government representatives, which I think was what the original question was about.

If there are lessons to be learned from elsewhere in the UK, I would be quite happy to look at them, although I would observe the challenges—

—throughout the Anglosphere.