Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

Common frameworks are a work in progress. A recent example of that is the deposit return scheme, where mechanisms have clearly not been working, which has led to a situation that acts against the devolved decision-making powers of the Scottish Parliament and means that we do not have the most constructive working relationship.

Theoretically, there is nothing standing in the way of having a constructive working relationship and using the common frameworks. However—and not to exercise the committee on an issue in which it is well versed—since the introduction of the common frameworks, we have seen the passage of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which sometimes acts in parallel with and sometimes overrides the common frameworks in areas in which those frameworks are the only mechanism through which we might be able to progress issues. In those cases, the frameworks are trumped by the UK Government being able to make a decision and suggest that something is in the interests—as the UK Government sees it—of the UK single market. I will give the committee an example of that. You can easily imagine—[Interruption.]

There are two parts to Mr Bibby’s question. First, I make the general point that, whether it is tremendously welcome or not, I am an extremely regular attender of this committee. I give evidence to the convener and other members and, regardless of what the formal evidence session is about, there is an opportunity to ask me questions about any issue—that is a given and is on-going. That can be done in committee meetings or at portfolio question time, so I would not worry about the ability to raise issues with me.

However, I take the point about having the best formalised structure to update members in a fast-moving situation. I am very alive to that, because of my governmental responsibility and because I think about how the committee can perform its responsibilities. If there are developments between evidence sessions or programmed reporting on the Scottish Government’s approach to EU alignment or retained EU law, I am perfectly content to update the committee on that—as I did in my letter yesterday—to give context that can perhaps influence and inform members’ questions and allow them to be informed of the latest state of play.

I am sure that it has not escaped members’ notice that we are literally dealing with a situation that changes from week to week. If we can do more to keep the committed updated on progress, I am perfectly content that we write to the committee to do that.

I put on record my appreciation to members of the House of Lords, who have been working with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government and with whom we have an extremely close working relationship, on this and other issues. On this issue in particular we have an extremely close working relationship with them. We share each other’s concerns, and a number of members of the House of Lords—those from Scotland and from Wales, in particular—have been very active in raising the concerns of both Governments, for which I am grateful. In answer to Mr Bibby’s point about whether there is more that we can do to keep the committee updated, that is a very live and on-going issue for me, and I will continue to do my best to keep the committee informed and answer its questions.

On the question of the nine items in the schedule that relate to devolved subjects and whether we are concerned about a clause or sub-clause of those nine items, as opposed to whether we have a general concern that they have devolved impacts, I think that I am right in saying that it is a general concern at this stage, because one really needs to work through all the pieces of legislation and specific provisions.

We have passed the stage of asking whether there is a devolved impact—there is. The question is whether we can gain, through looking at particular scenarios, knowledge of what would happen were the provisions to fall off the statute book. Civil service colleagues are trying to work through that to understand what mitigation might be required. I am happy to update the committee when we get to the stage of understanding that, so that members are aware of that concern, too.

There is no comparison with the constructive working relationship that I and the Welsh Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, Mick Antoniw, have with a number of members of the House of Lords. From memory, we have had perhaps three meetings on the issues during the progress of the bill through Westminster. I have not had a single meeting with the UK minister in the House of Lords.

I am not sure whether committee members are aware of the sarcastic quip from the dispatch box about the likely reaction of the Scottish Government. I paraphrase, but it was something along the lines of, “Well, you would expect that wouldn’t you?” It was certainly not informed by any communication with me. We have not met to discuss any of the issues. As with many other matters on which the UK Government is proceeding with legislation or policy that relates directly to devolved competence, unfortunately, there is a gulf between the rhetoric and the reality when it comes to co-operation and close working relations, which are illusory.

I think that I am correct in saying that I will be giving evidence to the committee on 29 June on the operation of devolution post-Brexit, and we will discuss at some length at that meeting issues such as intergovernmental relations, the codification of expected norms of behaviour between Governments, the sovereignty of Westminster, the Sewel convention, delegated powers for UK ministers to legislate in devolved competence and, indeed, the UK internal market. However, it is fair to say that this is an evolving and moving situation.

I have to say, as somebody who thought that the devolution settlement was exactly that—settled—it clearly is not, and a variety of mechanisms are being used to row back on devolution.

I am not sure whether I have the microphone, but I will carry on as if I do.

I think that these areas are being explored by officials in the Scottish Government and at Westminster. Following on from what my colleagues have already said, I think that there are other related issues with regard to the extent to which measures are fully devolved or on which there is a degree of shared competence. I do not think that it will come as a surprise to committee members to learn that this was always a consideration that gave us concern.

It is not as simple as saying that the Scottish Government would wish something to remain on the statute book in Scotland, whereas the UK Government might wish it no longer to be on the statute books that would apply to England and Wales; it is about whether there is a duty on both Governments to try to deal with issues where there are currently shared competences that are a contributing factor to the complication of the situation in which we find ourselves.

I suppose that that is a reflection of the circumstance being fast moving, because we do not have clarity on all of that. It leads to the subsidiary but no less important point about what the role of the Scottish Parliament, in committee or plenary, is in relation to having an understanding of the process and being able to play a part in scrutinising it.

I will have to defer to colleagues about specific outside organisations but I make the general observation that, at the heart of the question is a reflection on the difficulty of trying to deal with hundreds and thousands of pieces of retained EU law and work out which are still operable, which apply and which require to be incorporated into what is being described as assimilated law and to do so in such a way as to get maximum external expertise as part of the process. That is one of the areas that, for anybody who cares about having the best legislative standards that we can have, is deeply problematic because, as I have said a couple of times this morning, we are dealing with a fast-moving situation.

Until recently, we were dealing with a situation in which the major concern—not the only one, but the major one—was that, among the thousands of pieces of legislation that might fall off the statute book, there might be additional laws that one had not even identified as being relevant and retained but would fall off the statute book because they were overlooked. Now, because of the change in the UK Government’s approach, we have a list of 500-plus pieces of legislation to be added to the schedule.

The question of due diligence on all those measures is good. Whether one can say with absolute certainty that all the laws beyond the nine that we have identified as potential matters of concern have a clean bill of health is definitely a question. I have been keen to ensure that we are as confident as we can be that we are not losing the high standards that European Union membership and legislation guaranteed for us before Brexit because, as the committee knows, it is the Scottish Government’s policy to remain as closely aligned as possible to the high European standards that exist.

We are seeing a pivot in the UK Government’s approach to dealing with retained EU law and are having to use our resources as quickly as we can, given the timescales that the UK Government has now imposed on us in its legislative programme. That will evolve if we are to assume that the bill is passed. However, that raises as many questions as you have been asking until now.

However, on whether specific external organisations have been part of the sift process, if one wants to call it that, I defer to colleagues.