Chamber and committees

That is another Argyll and Bute connection. We must understand that Gaelic is not only a historic language of Scotland and something that we should learn and enjoy; it is also of huge interest to people elsewhere. That is a thoroughly good thing.

To be concrete about it, I wish that the framework process, which has been going on and on, could be completed and agreed, and that the frameworks were operating in such a way that then precludes the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 from impacting on devolved areas. That would be a pretty good short-term solution, which would free you up to actually scrutinise the workings of said frameworks. That would be a good thing.

I am not entirely sure—we may have different perceptions of how short the short-term short term is, but it is the Government’s intention that, within the current parliamentary session, the people of Scotland should be able to determine the future governance of this country. Whatever we consider to be short term, medium term and long term, we intend to take that forward in this parliamentary session. That will allow us to think completely differently about the interrelationship of Governments and governance on these islands.

I stress that, for me, an important dimension in the next stage in Scotland’s democratic journey is our interrelationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, which will still remain the primary relationship that we have. Obviously, during the Covid restrictions, my ability to take part in face-to-face meetings has been restricted—as it has been for all members and for the rest of society—but I am pleased that, this weekend, I will take part in my first face-to-face intergovernmental event at which I will meet members of the UK Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of the Irish Republic at the British-Irish Association.

Given the suboptimal way in which things currently operate in the devolved settlement, it behoves us all to work out how things can work better on the basis of Scotland being a sovereign state like the Irish Republic. That is not all plain sailing, as we have observed during Brexit, but I am very cognisant of the issue and I want good formal and informal relations between the nations of these islands. I am of the view that we will be in the best possible position to pursue our interests, and our shared interests, by being a sovereign equal and, in our case, a member state of the European Union, which we would then be, together with the Irish Republic. There would also be new machinery, and we would need to think about how we can make that work optimally.

Obviously, we want the people of Scotland to decide on that once we emerge from the Covid phase that we are in now, but it is very high up on my working list. After all, the manifesto that I was elected on, and the manifestoes that the majority of members in the Parliament were elected on, said that we would deliver that referendum within the current parliamentary session.

No—it was the British-Irish Association, which is perhaps less known. The British-Irish Council is of course important. We should not lose sight of the fact that its secretariat is headquartered in Scotland, in this very city. It is an example of machinery that was agreed as part of the Good Friday agreement. Obviously, we hope that the situation in Northern Ireland does not deteriorate. I very much hope that the interrelationship between Governments on these islands can be improved. The British-Irish Association is another format that brings together Government representatives from across these islands.

I could probably speak for the next hour on that subject alone. First, I will set out my starting principle. You might be interested in hearing more detail on this, but since I have taken up office, I have been working closely with colleagues in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. In my engagement with UK Government colleagues, I have made it absolutely clear that, in finding workable solutions to issues of governance, administration, democratic oversight and the reform of arrangements, I am extremely keen to do so on a collegial basis, to find agreement where it can be found and to overcome any administrative blockages, if I can put it that way. I am acting in good faith to try to deliver on the wish that surely everyone in Government should have to operate as best we can.

A concrete example of how it might be possible to improve things is the issue of frameworks. The subject itself might seem slightly dry, but the framework agreements are the method by which a United Kingdom that has left the European Union can best operate with the devolved Administrations. It goes back to principles that were agreed in October 2017. I must point out that the timeline is important to understanding what is going on below the surface. Commitments were made about the way in which Governments could and should work together, but, subsequently, the UK Government decided to pursue the 2020 act, which in effect drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. As a result, progress on the detail of framework agreements has neither been as quick nor gone as far as I—and, no doubt, the committee in wishing to scrutinise the frameworks—would have wished. Frankly, it has not been good enough.

I have discussed the issue in person with Chloe Smith, a UK Government minister in the Cabinet Office, whom I know. Having spent 16 years at Westminster, I know a lot of the UK Government ministers and interlocutors, as you might imagine. That is a good thing, because we agreed to work and act in good faith to try to make progress on the framework agreements, on which such progress has been too slow or, indeed, not been made. In answer to your question on how we can make things work better, I think that that is a concrete way in which that could happen.

A more general observation that goes across the piece with regard to internal Government relations—and something that I have asked that we log from now on—relates to how meetings and discussions that involve the UK Government on specific matters that Governments have supposed to progress operate in practice. It is hard to reach any other conclusion but that the UK Government’s determined and deliberate approach towards the Scottish Government—and, by extension, the Scottish Parliament—is not to inform the Scottish Government, or to inform it late, and not to involve it in all relevant meetings.

When one takes part in meetings, the thing that one hears most often is “noted”. Apparently, one will hear later that the things that were discussed have been fully consulted on. I suspect that, if being consulted means taking part in Teams or Zoom meetings at which UK Government ministers simply say, “noted”, that will fall far short of the expectations of the Scottish Government and, I expect, this committee.

We have a profound challenge in how we deal with the UK Government because, frankly, not only is the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations suboptimal, but the UK Government is pursuing policies that are aimed at undermining and denuding the devolved settlement that was agreed by the people of Scotland—and, incidentally, the devolved settlements that were agreed by the people of Wales and Northern Ireland.

No doubt, those are questions that you would want to ask any UK Government minister if they deign to turn up. I look forward to watching such an evidence session with interest.

Thank you for your first observation, which is helpful. It is possible to scrutinise things that are not fully resolved, and it is not unhelpful for the Government to try to make significant progress with such measures before bringing them to Parliament. I am sure that you appreciate that.

On the issue of intergovernmental relationships, I will again start off with the best of intentions and say that there are areas in which it is possible to deliver further progress. I raised the issue of frameworks, which would be a good thing on which to make progress, notwithstanding that there are genuine and legitimate differences between the Government that has been elected in Scotland and the Government that has been elected elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I will share a few other matters that I think would be worthy of consideration by the committee. First, the fairer dispute resolution process, which could, for the first time, involve the principle that no Government can be both party to and arbiter of a dispute, would be a good thing. There is the question whether there should be an independent secretariat drawn from the four Governments, which would oversee machinery and dispute resolution processes. I think that that would also be a good thing.

There are emerging proposals from the Treasury that would make four-nation discussions more equitable, but there is the outstanding issue about whether the Treasury, which, in normal circumstances, would be unlikely to relinquish control of the oversight of financial disputes, would need to do so because, as part of the UK Government, it is party to many of them.

The fourth area in which there are revised proposals—which you might want to understand more about, and which would improve current processes—involves having more transparent arrangements for formal intergovernmental meetings. The arrangements would involve shared responsibility for agenda setting and chairing meetings, rather than our receiving a fax that sets out what we are talking about, when the meeting is happening and who is taking part, which has all been decided by the UK Government. That is not a normal way of doing business.

In answering the question, I stress that there are areas in which we can make progress and areas in which things could be agreed if there was goodwill on all sides. I acknowledge that there comes a point when the seriously differing views of the UK Government and the Scottish Government are irresolvable. However, surely all of us on the committee, in the Government and in the Parliament serve on the basis of a devolved settlement that was voted for by the people of this country. Therefore, it behoves us to protect, maintain and support the governance of this country on the basis that that is what the people agreed to.

No doubt we will have differences about what happens next. In 2014, we were invited to say “no thanks” and remain in the United Kingdom, which was part of the European Union, but the material circumstances of that choice have subsequently changed, and the issue will be debated in full. I stress that there are areas in which we can make progress, and I genuinely hope that we can do so, but it will take a shift in either mindset or policy.

First, I should say that I am very mindful of the time, and I am sure that there are committee members who are keen to ask some questions about culture, as well.

To give a very quick answer, both of the proposed Scottish Government hubs would be established on an on-platform basis in the UK embassies, simply because proximity can result in very direct co-ordination with UK embassy colleagues. There are other advantages in following a different model, but that is a concrete response to the specific case that you have asked about. I could talk at greater length about how we co-ordinate, and I want to do so.

Incidentally, though, it is a two-way street. It would be great to hear what the UK Government is doing in a whole series of circumstances that impact on us and this committee’s work. Unfortunately, we do not hear about any of that. It would be good if that were to happen.