Chamber and committees

I am coming increasingly to the view that, for most, it is the total absence of any conscious consideration whatsoever of how office holding in the UK Government actually requires one to deal with devolved Administrations. That is as true in areas of devolved responsibility as it is in reserved areas. A moment ago, I gave Mr Kerr an example of trade negotiations to make agreements on pharmaceuticals. Addressing how that impacts on Scotland, where we have free prescriptions, is an obvious area where Scotland needs to be a part of the processes.

I am therefore of the view that the approach is less an active decision and more a case of not taking the matter seriously at all and of having an absolutely thoughtless mindset. That goes back to the question of how that can be so and to my observation about the UK being unique as a multinational state that has 85 per cent of the population in one part and a Government that operates as an English and UK Government at the same time. Will that ever change? No, I do not think so.

There is a plan to secure Scottish independence and it is through the ballot box.

The simple answer is no. I would also pray in aid the continuing presence of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on the statute book as an example of there having been a pre-election acknowledgement that there was an attempt to subvert the devolution process and the new UK Government, on attaining office, then wanting to retain that legislation in its back pocket in order to continue the bad practices.

In fairness—if Mr Halcro Johnston were to reflect on the evidence that I have given this morning—I have been nuanced in my reflections about how things work. I have pointed to examples where intergovernmental relations have been conducted in the spirit and to the letter of agreed ways working together. I have acknowledged that. I have also acknowledged that there are colleagues with whom I have a very good working relationship.

There are examples of things that are really challenging, because of timescales. I am not taking out a tiny violin and expecting parliamentarian colleagues to have tremendous sympathy for this but, where the Government has to satisfy parliamentary procedures and oversight, it really matters that we understand how things operate in different parts of the UK.

I can give Mr Halcro Johnston this assurance. I have been involved in processes where UK Government colleagues have told me, “I appreciate that this will be difficult for you. Is there a way that we can work through this?” I can give Mr Halcro Johnston the assurance that I have worked in good faith to do that.

If one has to work together on things for four or five years, one has to show good faith. If all one is going to do is to suggest that nothing works, without being prepared to work in good faith or to compromise about things, then nothing will work. That is not how things operate.

I do not think that Mr Halcro Johnston was a member of the committee when I narrated my first experience of common frameworks.

Indeed.

I understand that and will answer it in a couple of ways.

First, as I said to Mr Kerr, I am open to workable suggestions about how intergovernmental relations can work better. I want to leave the committee, this Parliament and my UK Government colleagues in no doubt that we are committed to trying to make the structures work as well as they can. That is no substitute for being a sovereign state, and we are having to find workarounds, but we are open to thinking about new ways of doing things.

I hope that you will forgive me for saying that I would like to see the detail of how some of that might work, because I am sure that UK Government ministers would say that they would expect to be questioned about that in the House of Commons. I do not know whether there was an oral statement on Erasmus+ so I am looking at my colleagues to see whether they know. They are saying that there was not, which surprises me, because that would have given an opportunity for Scottish members, or anyone else, to try to find out the funding implications.

I agree with Mr Harvie that that is still not enough and that we need a better way. I can give a commitment on behalf of the Scottish Government, and I have. I am taking away the issue of transparency and I will think about how we can provide better statistics, such as those that Mr Bibby asked about, but there is more than that.

Without getting into the territory of endangering the opportunity for getting a process under way, I will give an example and will describe it slightly elliptically, for reasons that I think that members will understand. We have been asked to take part in a pretty important UK policy process that involves considering how such a change might be managed—the terms of reference, a green paper and a subsequent white paper, which is the process of things. We were asked for our input into something that is important for Scotland, so we provided detailed information in relation to the process. I had a meeting about it during which it was apparent that not a single consideration had been shared with the UK Government; not a single material consideration—zero—had found its way into the apparently iterative process. Hurdle 1 was that we were asked to contribute and told that the UK Government was very interested in hearing from us, so we provided the information. I asked if we could be given an example of anything that we had taken part in that had made its way into the process. I acknowledge that unless parliamentarians are aware that that is the case, one cannot hold ministers to account. That is why I say to Mr Harvie that I am open to thinking about ways that we can do that better.

Thanks.

I will ask Mr Mackie to come in in a nanosecond.

We still have no answer.