Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are we talking about later this year?

It was good to hear the opening comments from the witnesses and to see the submissions that we have had so far.

How do we see the action taking place? I refer to the work between local and national government and voluntary and third sector organisations. Funding is not our job, but local authorities have experienced a 29 per cent cut over the past decade. It is a challenging environment, so how do you make the most of your resources at the local level? How do you work together?

There are three things to think about: leadership, access to venues—how do you support one another on that?—and employment. I mention those because, in work that we did last year, we found that leadership is important but there were also issues with access to venues, investment in venues, rocketing prices and people leaving the cultural sector. How do local authorities work together with different cultural organisations to maximise the impact if we now have a new strategy to make things happen and let communities access the support?

Is anyone volunteering to go first?

That is really helpful feedback, because part of the issue is about how things are being co-ordinated at a local level. Points were made in relation to who is doing that co-ordination and leadership in each local authority area so that there is somebody who then makes the connections with health, venues or third sector organisations. It is about that architecture.

With the cultural strategy, is there sharing of best practice between local authorities in different areas, such as rural and city areas? How do you share best practice with other council department areas or health and social services so that they buy into that wellbeing approach as opposed to taking a health approach, as was suggested?

I was asking about leadership, venues and employment—the practicalities to enable access in our communities.

That is what I was thinking when I was reading your paper: you have the expertise already. I also noted a practical issue in your paper, which says:

“During our year of presidency special attention will be paid to how peace is the prerequisite for human rights, especially women’s rights, social stability and environmental protection.”

It is interesting to see women’s rights centre stage. You have talked about the gender pay gap, so, although the work that you are doing is high level, it is also practical.

That is really interesting. Thank you very much.

It is very good to have you in Parliament today, Your Excellency.

The paper that you have distributed to us is excellent and really frames your priorities in a very interesting way. It is entitled “The Nordic Region—A Force for Peace”. Has the invasion of Ukraine impacted on the work that you are doing? What has changed with the invasion of Ukraine? Is it the impact on rights, which you mentioned, and economic issues? Can you talk a little bit about that? I was also interested in the reference to peace institutes. Was that on your agenda before the invasion, or has that come to the fore since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

I want to go back to your recommendation and the process by which it could be achieved. Do you see legislation being passed by the UK Parliament to enact the principles that you identify in the paragraph that I referred to, such as

“a principle of subsidiarity, clarification of the extent of plenary legislative competence”?

You recommend the adoption of a principled approach and a set of “principles of union”, to clarify that devolved Parliaments would have competence. That would mean that, when courts considered the matter, there would be a piece of legislation that framed that arrangement and updated the devolution principles. In addition to the Scotland Act 1998, there would be a piece of legislation that the courts would consider that would apply across the piece—it would apply to Wales and Northern Ireland as well—which would have been passed by the UK Parliament and supported by the other devolved Parliaments.

Professor McHarg, you mentioned that the Brown commission is proposing a statutory restatement of the Sewel convention and that the Scottish Government is proposing statutory reform. You also mentioned other statutory changes that could be brought in. Interestingly, you stated:

“the application of UK legislation to devolved matters would have to be explicit; and failure to seek consent would be evidence that the relevant provisions were not intended to apply in devolved areas.”

Strengthening that principle and putting it in statute is a really interesting way in which to go. We have had past agreement on the need to update the devolution settlement. That was a very helpful comment about how, practically, you could strengthen the devolution settlement alongside strengthening the Sewel convention.

I thank Professor McHarg for the paper that she sent us, which is really helpful. It goes into detail and made me think beyond the headlines. There are a couple of interesting issues that I would like to explore about reforming the devolution statutes, to follow on from Donald Cameron’s questions. This is prompted partly because we had the Saxon State Parliament constitution committee with us this week. It has a legal constitution but with an intergovernmental framework, a mediation committee and horizontal devolution. It was interesting to see its framework.

Looking at your suggestion about having

“a fuller set of principles to guide the interpretation of limits on devolved competence”,

I note that you say that there are arguments for and against. I was interested in your suggestions that could potentially add clarity: the principle of subsidiarity; clarification of the extent of primary legislative competence under reserved powers; and principles of union. You said that it could go the other way but, when we pass legislation, there is a policy memorandum, and what ministers say in the Parliament can be interpreted by judges. Is there something about being really clear about the intent of devolution to reinforce the importance of devolution, given the experiences that we have had post-Brexit?