Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Ruskell mentions a number of key facts, one of which is the size of the portfolio’s budget relative to that for the rest of Government. Another is the fact that there are certain responsibilities within the portfolio that have wider Government benefit. He is right to say that the responsibility for major events is one of those; responsibility for the census is another. Although the census falls every 10 years, there is a significant risk of financial displacement within a small portfolio if one has such a major responsibility without necessarily having specific funding. In the past, interventions have been made to provide specific support for the likes of the census.

What the Scottish Government is doing is a really good example of its recognising the cross-Government benefits that major events can bring. There will be wider discussions about how that should be approached in future. One of the side-effects of Scotland becoming as successful as it has been in recent years with major events is that we need to think about how we do all of that. I do not think that anyone wants there to be a displacement effect within the wider portfolio, which includes, as well as culture, external affairs. To go back to Mr Cameron’s point, the culture portfolio includes our ability to project, among other things, our cultural offering to the rest of the world, so it is really important that we maintain all those different areas of the portfolio’s work so that we can do what we are trying to do to promote Scotland domestically and internationally.

No doubt, there will be conversations about how we make sure that we have a cross-Government approach to major events, but there is an acknowledgement that one of the benefits of major events working hand in hand with the culture directorate in the Scottish Government is that a lot of people in the civil service who work in culture are extremely talented in the organisation of events, whether those are cultural events or wider events that are hosted in Scotland.

There are reasons why major events work closely together with culture. The question is whether the funding model is fit for the place that we now find ourselves in, having had that good experience of major events. Since the Commonwealth games in 2014, we have seen really large, world-class events and we have the aspiration to do more. Therefore, we must make sure that we have the right mechanisms—funding is a part of that—to be able to do that.

Those are, frankly, unnecessarily pointed questions from Mr Bibby. He has been here since the beginning of the session, so he heard me draw attention to not only the inflation rate but—this is mission critical in the context of having a serious approach to funding culture—the appreciation of the additional pressure on the Scottish budget due to pay settlements worth an additional £785 million. That significant amount of money brings additional pressure to bear on the Scottish Government budget.

In reference to Kate Forbes’s question, it is the additionality of the costs of the likes of pay claims—I am not talking about inflation, which means that you can buy less—that squeezes the Government’s budget and that has the impact of displacing our ability to do everything that we would want to do. That is a really very basic public administration and finance point.

Unless somebody wants to be serious about explaining how one deals with that pressure by finding money from elsewhere, one must broach the pressures that one is having to face and deal with them. It seems to me to be eminently sensible that if one has the ability to use reserves such that one does not actually cut—that is, end—funding for organisations, that is the best course of action. If Mr Bibby would prefer to cut culture budget lines in areas where there are no reserves, he has to explain how to do that. I have not heard that from anybody thus far.

We find ourselves in circumstances that, again, any fair-minded person would acknowledge are significant and extreme. Given those pressures, where there are reserves that can deal with a situation in extremis and can then be recompensed to ensure that on-going financial and planning purposes are fulfilled, it seems that that is the prudent, sensible and sustainable decision, which we are making. If not, one is talking about ending financial support for cultural organisations, which I am not prepared to do.

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.

Some people amplify that particular perspective incorrectly. Neil Bibby’s question is very good. There is tension between intergovernmental relations and transparency, which I think is understood by committee members.

The Governments are not supposed to provide a running commentary on the issues that are discussed at meetings. I might characterise my unhappiness about the general approach, but I have not provided a running commentary on the substance of what was discussed at meetings. It is important for there to be trust between Governments about how one proceeds with different policy areas; I understand and respect that.

For parliamentarians and committees that have the responsibility to hold Government and Government ministers to account, how can we best report back in a way that you can take a view on? I have given evidence to the committee a number of times, and I say again on record that I am extremely keen that my officials work with the committee clerks to find the best way in which we can report back to the committee on retained EU law, Scottish Government alignment with European Union legislation and policies and intergovernmental relations. That is a work in progress, and discussions are taking place on how that happens in relation to retained EU law and European Union alignment.

On intergovernmental relations, we need to think about how we make clear how things work and how things do not work. If it is not already in the public realm, it is not unhelpful for people to be aware that it is a matter of record; the Scottish Government keeps records on intergovernmental relations. We try to have an institutional memory of those experiences, whether they are good, bad or indifferent.

I find it curious that a lot of this revolves around the extent to which UK Government ministers and departments understand devolution and, if they do, the extent to which they are prepared to have a pragmatic relationship, or whether they see the process as a tick-box exercise. I get the feeling quite a lot that meetings are held to simply say that consultation took place and that there was discussion on the issue, as opposed to genuinely taking something away and saying, “Right—I wasn’t aware of that,” or, “That’s a good suggestion,” or, “No, I don’t think we’re likely to agree with that, but let’s find a pragmatic way forward.”

There is a public interest in understanding how things are not working. I agree with Mr Bibby on that point, and I will definitely take away and consider how we can help committee members and the wider Scottish Parliament—and through that the public—to understand how things are not working, because it is pretty stark.

One of the great joys of ministerial responsibility is my total admiration for the civil service, its neutrality and the advice that it gives. I assume that there are people out there who do not appreciate that there is a singular civil service in Great Britain. There is not a Scottish civil service, per se, and there is not an English or English and Welsh civil service; there is a civil service that works across Great Britain—there is a Northern Irish civil service, which is different. One of the benefits of that is that officials are able to work together, often very well at a technical level, but it presupposes a number of things.

Of course, civil servants work to ministerial guidance on things. If ministerial guidance is such that, in relation to the Sewel convention, one is prepared to make legislative proposals that require a legislative consent motion, and that is communicated on a Friday, but the next Monday, which is less than one working day after that, the pursuit of that legislative consent motion is disregarded—that is what happened only a few short weeks ago—it shows how bad things can be. That is the case regardless of whether civil servants are working well together.

Donald Cameron is absolutely right to identify that there are good examples. There is no doubt that there is legislation on which there is co-operation and there are areas in which it makes sense to use legislative consent motions, including—to be pragmatic—where that serves public administration and best policy making.

Donald Cameron used the formulation that the Sewel convention is under strain. Mark Drakeford, the First Minister of Wales, described the Sewel convention as withering on the vine, because there has been an acceleration in the disregard of it. That is the thing that the committee should take particular cognisance of. What we are seeing is a UK Government that is prepared to disregard—increasingly and at an accelerated pace—the likes of the Sewel convention.

I know that the committee knows this, but I will say it so that it is on the record. The disregard of legislative consent motions started with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, then it continued with the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the Professional Qualifications Act 2022, the Subsidy Control Act 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Act 2023 and the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. Have a look at those dates. Do you see what is happening? It is happening in plain sight.

What is happening is that the UK Government is increasingly choosing to disregard the convention. Many—including, perhaps, Mr Cameron himself—have taken the view in the past that simply having a convention that can be disregarded is something that should be of concern. It is increasingly of concern, because what is happening here is a fact.

I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland has difficulty when he is confronted with the facts about what he and his Government are doing in relation to Sewell. These are not minor pieces of legislation; some of them are extremely important—for example, the internal market act is a profoundly important piece of legislation. The Scottish Parliament voted not to give legislative consent to the internal market act, and the UK Government disregarded that.

To Donald Cameron’s point, regardless of the willingness of civil servants to work with one another—they often do so very well—if UK Government ministers choose to disregard the devolution settlement, they will do so, and that is exactly what they are doing.

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.

The best co-operation that we have had was with members of the House of Lords who are concerned about the UK Government’s proposals, because—as is often the case with ping-pong scenarios—proposals are made at quite short notice and the ability to influence how they are debated and voted on in the House of Lords is often quite an immediate issue.

I certainly never got the impression that the UK Government had the interests of devolved Administrations as a high priority in the process. If it had, it would not have proposed the legislation as it was drafted. It also intended to carry on regardless of legislative consent being withheld on the unamended bill.

The UK Government has gone on to make its concessions in relation to what is known as the cliff edge—the throwing all the babies out with the bath water approach—which was what it intended to do in the first place, and it turned the process on its head by listing pieces of legislation that it wishes to see fall off the statute book. That was a late change, and we were not consulted on it. I am sure that the UK Government would probably say that the Scottish Government’s views and opposition to its original approach had already been articulated. I have seen correspondence that says that the UK Government has partly acted on the concerns of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government in relation to the REUL bill.

On how the UK Government moved on to the next step of the process, we were informed on a Friday about the changes in relation to seeking legislative consent. Then, on the Monday, the UK Government confirmed from the dispatch box in the House of Lords that it would carry on regardless. That drives a coach and horses through how the Sewel convention is supposed to work. How on earth is the Scottish Parliament, whether it be committees or plenary, or the Scottish Government supposed to have time to consider a proposal about legislative consent from the UK Government over a weekend when no notice was given that it would carry on regardless on the Monday?

None of that speaks to devolved custom or practice operating in any meaningful and respectful sense. On the one hand, it is an improvement that the REUL bill will not sunset a great amount of legislation in the way that was originally planned, but, on the other hand, we know that the UK Government still plans to take more than 500 pieces of legislation off the statute book by the end of this year.

Scottish Government experts have been able to identify nine pieces of legislation that still have an impact in Scotland, but there is little prospect of us having the ability to have those pieces of legislation taken out of the updated REUL bill.

I am delighted to rejoin the committee for the third time. Forgive me, I am not sure at what point I dropped off. I will just give a short reprise of what I was saying to Mark Ruskell’s question.

My first reflection was that we are very actively considering how we will progress within Government the best understanding of what measures need to be taken to remain aligned with European Union legislation.

The second part of Mr Ruskell’s question was on the risk of the UK Government using the UK Internal Market Act 2020 to block the aspirations of the Scottish Government and Parliament to remain aligned with European Union legislation. He asked whether that was a significant fear that I share, to which the answer was yes, it absolutely is, because, if we look at the UK Government’s recent approach on a range of issues, from the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill to the deposit return scheme, we can see that it is prepared to consider a range of ways in which it can frustrate, block, delay and undermine progress in devolved areas of responsibility.

As the committee will be aware, a significant proportion of retained EU law does not fall neatly into a basket of devolved and reserved areas, so if those are pieces of legislation for which there is shared responsibility in a UK legislative setting, the question is whether I am confident that the UK Government would act in best faith so that Scotland could remain aligned with European Union standards while the UK sought to diverge from them. I have to say that I have grave concerns that the UK Government plans to develop and continue its interventionist approach in devolved areas. That will make it more difficult for us to retain the higher standard of European Union legislation and safeguards that we intend to pursue. However, pursue it we will.

That is a very good question to end on, as a takeaway for me and my colleagues. Given the new circumstances in which we find ourselves with the UK Government’s new approach to the legislation and its intentions in dealing with retained EU law, we are in a different environment regarding how we might be able to integrate the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of third sector and other organisations with a particular policy locus. Obviously, and in parallel, that also applies to parliamentary colleagues and specific committees.

As the cabinet secretary with responsibility in the area, I definitely want to be satisfied that, however we move forward after the passage of this legislation, we can do so in a way that integrates the expertise and understanding of organisations that have an interest in particular policy areas—Mark Ruskell mentioned one of those earlier. We want to ensure that Scotland remains aligned with the legislation, values and better standards of the European Union, to which the Scottish Government and the majority of members of the Scottish Parliament still remain committed.

With a bit of luck, you will be able to hear me. Are people nodding? I see that the convener is giving me the thumbs up.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I am sorry that I am not able to join you in person—I am in Brussels promoting major events in Scotland, including the world championships that are taking place later this year.

This morning’s evidence session is an opportunity to update the committee on our response to the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. You will know that the UK Government has finally seen sense and has scrapped its plans to automatically remove thousands of EU laws from the UK statute book by the end of this year. However, let us be clear that the fundamentals of the bill have not changed. I draw the committee’s attention to three particular issues.

First, the bill continues to put at risk vital protections that have been enjoyed by the people of Scotland for almost 50 years. Although the automatic sunset has gone, the UK Government is still planning to scrap almost 600 pieces of retained EU law by the end of December, while the rest of the laws remain in the scope of the UK Government’s reform and deregulation agenda. My officials received a list of those 600 laws only three weeks ago. At least nine of them are a cause of real concern. I have no confidence—zero confidence—that the UK Government will agree to their removal from the bill before it is given royal assent, which can only be a few weeks away. Officials are considering how best to provide information on the list to the Parliament.

Secondly, UK ministers remain empowered to act in devolved areas, without—[Inaudible.]

Thirdly, the amendments to the bill clearly triggered the legislative consent requirement on Friday 19 May. I received a letter from minister Ghani asking for that consent. However, by Monday 22 May—that is, one working day later—the UK Government had decided to proceed without it.

My officials continue to assess the long-term policy implications of the bill. I reassure you, convener, and your committee colleagues that I want to maintain an open dialogue with the committee as we make progress on that. I am happy to take questions.