Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Adam is again correct. Especially after yesterday’s opinion poll in Wales that confirmed the leading position of Plaid Cymru and the appalling levels of support for the Welsh Labour Party and the Welsh Conservative Party, and given the polls in Northern Ireland, I have absolutely no doubt that the prognosis that Mr Adam draws to our attention regarding the likely outcomes of elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will mean that, for the first time, there will be heads of government in three of the four nations of this United Kingdom who believe in fundamental constitutional change.

I would wish there to be a mechanism that was agreed by all. However, if there is not, I think that, as never before, we will have a debate—in England as well, given that potential and likely outcome of the elections next year—on the fact that the status quo is not sustainable, that it rests on an unwritten constitution, that it not being written in stone is not a strength but a weakness, and that it undermines democratic rights in Scotland. That is not sustainable.

As I have shared with the committee before, I am sympathetic to the transparency point on wanting to ensure that you have enough information to do your work of holding the Government to account and—by extension in this context—being able to understand how the intergovernmental processes work. We discussed just a moment ago the fact that the Scottish Government publishes information about interministerial meetings. That exists and is public. It is perhaps not published in a format that lends itself to being able to see where things are not happening, which is an obvious area that you would wish to pursue.

As I have said before, I am keen for us to provide you with information so that you can interrogate what the Scottish Government is doing on European Union alignment. I will take away that point in relation to our processes, but I assure the committee that I am keen to discuss the issue with Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues, because what is true for here is true for there. Perhaps there are processes in Wales and Northern Ireland that we do not undertake; I would want to know what those are. Perhaps there are self-evident approaches that we might take that would help better inform colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly in this respect.

It will make a difference only on the margins—I agree with Mr Brown on that—but having transparency will make it ever more difficult for people not to do what they are supposed to do. The Foreign Office provides an absolutely classic example of how the arrangements have not worked for me, because one needs only to look at how long I have been in office and ask how many times I have held an annual meeting with the Foreign Secretary—not a junior minister—and that will tell you that concordats or intergovernmental agreements, structures and processes are not working as they have been set out to operate.

As I said, it involves not just civil servants operating to the UK Government but civil servants who work to the Scottish Government. They are not independent of Government—of course not, because this is about intergovernmental relations—but the Scottish Government’s view is that it operates appropriately.

No. We are saying that there is a secretariat and that we are content with its functioning.

I will hand over to Mr Mackie to—

I would say that the organisation of the UK Government is for the UK Government.

I will first share my observation on Dunlop, and I will then ask Chris Mackie to come in—with your permission, convener.

The thing that I find most interesting about Dunlop relates to funding. I note that the UK Government did not follow the Dunlop recommendations on arrangements for spending in devolved areas. The Dunlop review recommended that there should be agreement between the UK Government’s departments and relevant devolved Governments on any funding bid to encourage cross-border collaboration or working. That does not happen. In fact, that is the opposite of what is being pursued on local growth funding. We might come back to that issue because, curiously, the current UK Government is taking a different approach in Wales from that which it is taking in Scotland, and we might wonder why.

Nonetheless, Mr Kerr asked about Dunlop, and that is one of the most interesting points.

I can answer that question only about myself, but I am happy to update the committee more generally. I have been provided with confirmation that I have met UK Government ministers at least 24 times since the change in UK Government, but the total number of meetings will be a significant number.

I think that it is actually the Deputy First Minister who has governmental responsibility for intergovernmental relations. I have responsibility for the constitution. My civil service colleagues keep a note of all the details.

It is also fair to acknowledge that some UK Government ministers, because of their area of responsibility, are very committed to meeting regularly. Nick Thomas-Symonds, who is responsible for Europe, is a good example of that. I observe that, more often than not, I tend to meet Scottish and Welsh UK Government ministers. It is perhaps the case that they have a better sense than others that they should be meeting about things—that is just my perception.

I am sorry, but to keep my answer brief, I do not have the full number of meetings, Mr Bibby. If the committee wishes for us to make the best stab at a global number, I am happy to then provide that number.

I hear Mr Brown using the word “shambles” and I have used the word “suboptimal”; I am not sure that they are that far apart. I agree very much with him that this is not primarily about structures. Notwithstanding that one should keep an open mind as to how structures might work—that is fine—I agree that the key underlying issue is the attitude towards things.

The term that Mr Brown was looking for from a European context was “codecision”, which is the decision-making process between European institutions. That approach is certainly not what happens in intergovernmental relations.

As I think that I have said to the committee before, we have come to the end of the rhetoric about reset having any validity, because now we are down to the content and the quality of intergovernmental relations. I have no doubt that the attitude in Westminster is that devolved Administrations and Parliaments are subordinate and that one should do as much as is necessary to help intergovernmental relations to work when it is in one’s interest and to ignore them when it is not. That is the reality of things.

Mr Brown drew international comparisons. I have discussed the issue with colleagues in other European countries that have quasi-federal devolved structures and they are aghast about how the system works in the UK. “Ad hoc” sounds like a formal way of describing things, but it has most certainly been suboptimal.

Regardless of whether one is for or against Scottish independence, or of whether one wishes to have a more federal situation, which is what a previous UK Prime Minister suggested we would be having after 2014, we are very far away from that. Can we try to get some of this to work better? Yes—I am trying, as are other colleagues. A lot of it would not be that difficult, such as the European stuff.

I reflect on my earlier point that there has to be trust between Governments in an intergovernmental structure. That is a very important element of how it can all work. However, unless one tries it, things will never get better.

In fact, in a European context, the approach is going backwards. Keith Brown could have reminded the committee that, in the past, Scottish Government civil servants took part in the annual fisheries negotiations in Brussels, in the room—they were there—but that is not the case now; we just get a read-out of what has been agreed without any on-going discussion about what has been considered. That has gone backwards from pre-devolution custom and practice, and it is worse.