Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have one last question. I may come back in if there is time afterwards, but I know that other members want to come in.

In relation to the Sewel convention, I forget who proposed it, but our papers mention the idea of having a designated committee within this Parliament to look at legislative consent motions. Is there any mileage in the idea of having a joint standing committee between this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, with members from both sides on it, to try to ease some of the tensions around the Sewel convention? I do not know whether there is a precedent for it.

Mr Thomson talked earlier about the DRS—the law was made, people expected things to happen and then it was struck down. One of the concerns of this committee is the chilling effect that that has had on any proposals that the Government is considering, because people do not know whether or not they will be struck down. That chilling effect is quite profound. It will be interesting to see what impact that has on the parties’ manifestos in the coming election.

I have two questions, but I still expect to take less time than Stephen Kerr did. The first one is for Professor McEwen. In your submission, you make the statement that

“The Westminster parliament, particularly the House of Commons, has less interest in IGR especially at the portfolio level, and has demonstrated less interest than the devolved legislatures in scrutinising the UK Government’s intergovernmental activity.”

That is followed by your statement that

“In my view, transparency and accountability can be best increased by strengthening the requirements upon the Scottish Government to report on its activity in IGR.”

I am all for haranguing the Scottish Government to do more, and it could continually try to increase its transparency, but to what effect, when that level of apathy towards IGR is evident at Westminster?

I remember when I changed my mind on the not proven verdict—it was when I found out that it was not possible for sheriffs or judges to explain to jurors what a not proven verdict meant as opposed to a not guilty verdict. I return to Stephen Kerr’s point. I am not saying that the public want to know the detail of the internal machinations between Governments, but if there is no prospect of getting a reasonable understanding of a process that is so complex and so full of exceptions, with agreements and conventions that are not observed and all the rest of it, I think that you have to say that the system is not working. If the Westminster Parliament is apathetic, until it asserts its interest in IGR, we will continue to get what we are told elsewhere are decisions that are UK Government positions rather than the UK-wide positions that I think we all want to see.

On scrutinising the Scottish Government, I go back to a point that Jamie Halcro Johnston made. It relates to the idea that FOI is a vehicle. FOI has been abused so much that it has become discredited to some extent. Hundreds of FOI requests are put in by parliamentary researchers, which I think has undermined the process, plus it should not really be for individual MSPs to take the initiative and to ask for this information. I understand what you say about the time that FOI requests now take; one reason is that people put in hundreds. The cost is astronomical; it is about £120 an answer at least. The Scottish Government agreed to publish its ministers’ diaries, which it does proactively because it saves on FOI requests coming in and people having to ask all the time. Surely that resource could be tweaked. If a minister met with a UK minister, that could be highlighted so that it could be extracted from the system, which could say, “These are the meetings that we are aware of that have taken place between ministers at an intergovernmental level”. That would not be such an onerous thing to do.

I will keep my next couple of questions brief, cabinet secretary, and if you can keep your answers brief, too, I might get away with it with the convener.

Sure.

That was not quite my question, which was about whether you have any information on how successful it has been compared with the recent past, because it seemed to me to be exceptionally so.

It is good to hear that.

I have a relatively quick question, which goes back to the visitor levy. You said that you would like the money to be ring fenced. I agree that, where it is raised, proceeds from the levy should be directed towards cultural assets and cultural activities, at least in part, but who are you asking to do that ring fencing? Is it the local authority, which would raise it, or do you want the Scottish Government to give local authorities some kind of prod?

Yes—I mean the whole budget process.

Yes—I will come on to question 2 when you have answered that one.

Creative Scotland told us that it has the same confidence in the Government’s willingness to see through the commitments that it has made. However, it also made the point, quite reasonably, that although the increase in funding, which is substantial, is welcome, that is being undermined to some extent by the increase in costs that is now being faced. There are two factors there, the first of which is the increase in energy costs. Last year, a reduction in energy costs was promised. The second factor, which is having a larger impact, is the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which organisations did not budget for. They did not expect to face a substantial increase from elsewhere in relation to NICs.

Are you hearing that message from stakeholders? The Scottish Government is giving them more money, but some of that is having to be used to make up for rising costs elsewhere.