I certainly agree that the UK Government is overseeing a significant degradation of its great office of state. The Scottish Affairs Committee, of which Douglas Ross is part, recognises that the Foreign Office and the Scottish Government share a responsibility to promote Scotland’s interests internationally and that the UK Government could and should be doing more.

The UK Government must reflect on that as it considers the resources and priorities that are given to the Foreign Office. However, it demonstrates that to secure Scotland’s interests internationally—with regard to trade and investment, jobs in Scotland and a just transition to net zero—we must take our place as an independent member of the international community.

As I mentioned in my previous answer, our international offices provide a range of benefits to the people of Scotland. Those offices, which in 2023-24 will account for around 0.02 per cent of our overall spending plans, deliver real impact for our nation—for our economy, for inward investment, for our jobs market, for tourism, for culture and much more.

I welcome the fact that a growing number of Tess White’s colleagues on the Conservative benches have taken part in visits that have involved Scottish Government international offices. I do not think that Tess White has yet had that experience, but I commend it to her for the future.

We are all, indeed, paying a very high price for a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for, and it is clear that the costs of Brexit outweigh any costs of EU membership. For example, 32 per cent of the UK’s small and medium-sized enterprise employers named EU exit as a major obstacle to growth. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the UK’s gross domestic product to be 4 per cent lower in the long run due to Brexit. Every year, that equates to around £100 billion in lost output and around £40 billion in lost public revenues.

The Scottish Government agrees that rejoining the EU at the earliest opportunity as an independent country represents the best future for Scotland. Meanwhile, we remain committed to aligning with EU laws and standards where we can.

Our culture strategy action plan refresh, which is due to be published later this year, will provide further details on our commitment to develop our strategic approach to skills and careers in the culture sector.

Furthermore, responses to the recent events strategy consultation highlighted the point that maximising skills development opportunities should be a priority when delivering mega-events. An independent analysis of responses and update on next steps on our refreshed national events strategy will be published soon.

I also draw attention to work that is being undertaken in relation to skills and careers in Scotland’s burgeoning screen sector. I look forward to updating members on that in due course.

That sounded a bit critical in tone, so it would be interesting to hear from the Conservative front bench whether that is indeed the position of the Scottish Conservative Party. The Scottish Government’s international offices measure their activities, output and successes using a range of qualitative data, such as feedback provided by our stakeholders, media articles and case studies and quantitative data such as social media performance and event statistics.

Each Scottish Government international office submits a monitoring and evaluation report for each financial year in order to monitor its effectiveness, which helps ensure that each office is achieving its objectives and is providing value for money. Tess White is absolutely right to say that a report will be produced later this year.

First, we remain committed to opening a new office in Warsaw during this parliamentary term. After all, there is a rich history of education, trade and cultural links between Scotland and Poland, and we are keen to build on that. There are no plans to open any further Scottish Government international offices during this parliamentary term, but I very much welcome the tone and approach from the Conservative front bench spokesperson, which I contrast with the earlier contribution from his colleague behind him.

There are very strong reasons to actively consider expanding the network, and the member is right to point to different parts of the world where, as yet, there is no Scottish Government office. I would be delighted for him to make his case further, and I would very much welcome contributions from his party or indeed any other political party in the chamber that wishes us to expand the international network. I think that I am right in saying that there is all-party consensus that the offices provide excellent value for money and do a tremendous service for Scotland internationally.

I recognise the importance of ensuring that we have the right traditional skills to sustain our historic environment and progress our journey to net zero. Often, questions are raised about skills specifically in the heritage sector and Historic Environment Scotland. There is a great deal of focus on that area at present.

I acknowledge the pressures that Liz Smith highlights to the chamber. I am extremely focused on the matter. She will appreciate the budgetary constraints under which the Scottish Government operates, not least because of the policies of the United Kingdom Government, which she supports. However, we will do absolutely everything that we can to fund the sector as well as we can and to support emerging sectors.

That is why I mentioned the screen sector, which has now reached £500 million gross value added to the Scottish economy and is still on a trajectory to reach £1 billion. We need to ensure that we have people with the right skills to take—

The Scottish Government noted with great interest President von der Leyen’s state of the Union address, which begins the process of the European Union considering its strategic priorities for the year ahead. The Scottish Government will continue to follow the EU’s dialogue on the issues raised and consider what implications that might have for Scotland’s EU priorities and our commitment to align with EU legislation, where it is possible and meaningful for Scotland to do so.

That is understood; Mr Cameron is making my point about the approach of the then Labour Government, which is now shared by the UK Conservative Party. It reflects their attitude that ultimate sovereignty is with the Westminster Parliament, and that Westminster has the ability to intervene in areas of devolution.

Such measures were supposed to be last resorts, but now they are not last resorts; they are being used increasingly. I acknowledge that some of those measures are in legislation but were not used. However, they are now being used in the post-Brexit context in ways that subvert the role of this Parliament in holding to account ministers who have been elected to make decisions in those policy areas, and those decisions are being made by a Government and a Parliament that are not answerable to the people who have been elected to make those decisions. That is not appropriate working of devolution or a normal understanding of a self-governing country, whether it is devolved or independent.

Thank you very much, convener. I echo your thanks to the committee members who are moving on. I also welcome the members who are joining the committee. I am a pretty regular attender, so I look forward to spending more time with the new committee members, and wish those who are departing the best of luck with their new responsibilities.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to join it today. I am also very grateful to the committee for its initiating this important inquiry. As the committee has been hearing, there are widespread concerns about the future of devolution, given the approach of the current UK Government.

I believe that anyone who supports devolution to this Parliament should be very worried about those developments. We as parliamentarians should be particularly alive to the threats to this institution. After all, we are here because the people of Scotland voted for this Parliament. It is their democratic mandate that has given us democratic self-government in Scotland, and there is no mandate for the steady erosion of the devolution settlement that we have seen since the Brexit referendum.

Convener, you will have seen our paper that sets out how the UK Government has undermined the devolution settlement since 2016. In brief, Westminster has passed—without the Scottish Parliament’s agreement—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which reduces our effective powers and allows UK ministers to make further changes unilaterally.

The Sewel convention has, in the words of Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales, “withered on the vine”. From there being no breaches between 1999 and 2018, the convention will have been breached 10 times when the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill receives royal assent.

The Secretary of State for Scotland and the UK Government have blocked legislation on devolved matters passed by the Scottish Parliament for the first time, using powers intended as a “last resort”—and they have done so without following any of the agreed processes intended to avoid such an action.

The UK Government is taking a direct role in devolved policy, including decisions on public spending on devolved matters, bypassing the Scottish Parliament. It has tried to redesign the Scottish deposit return scheme, changing the model agreed by this Parliament to fit its own plans. The levelling up fund has been used to pursue UK Government aims in areas of our responsibility—by “our”, I mean all of our responsibility, as a Parliament, and not just the Scottish Government’s—instead of funding the priorities of this Parliament.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill currently at Westminster will put on a statutory basis the UK Government’s “levelling up missions”, which purport to set targets for Scotland and the rest of the UK for devolved matters, such as health, education and crime. Those matters—and any objectives and targets—are for this Parliament and this Government. The UK Government simply has no business setting such targets. To do so cuts at the very purpose of devolution; namely, to allow Scotland self-government and autonomy in areas of devolved responsibility. It is incumbent on us all as parliamentarians and supporters of devolution to recognise the threat that those actions pose to devolution and to take action to address them.

I very much look forward to hearing the committee’s conclusions and recommendations, but I will finish with a few suggestions, if I may.

The pre-eminence of the Scottish Parliament to decide on devolved matters should be restated, although we still have to acknowledge Westminster’s continued claim to sovereignty on all matters.

There should be a recognition that there is no hierarchy of Governments. Each has its own powers, and each has its own responsibilities. There should, therefore, be a commitment to working together with mutual respect and co-operation among the Governments of the UK, as equals. Flowing from that, the Governments should co-operate through negotiation and consensus using agreed intergovernmental processes such as common frameworks, instead of the UK Government centralising and imposing its views using the formal powers of the Westminster Parliament.

Furthermore, there should be a return to the previous constitutional norm that the Sewel convention is always followed, underpinned by proper legal duties on the UK Government.

Those are minimum necessary steps to restoring confidence in the devolution settlement. I recognise that other members will have their own ideas, and I look forward to discussing those with the committee.