Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have two questions—one on Sewel and one on IGR. I will look at IGR first.

There is a dispute mechanism in the current IGR system, and there was a consensus among witnesses who have come before the committee that that remains untried. I do not think that the Scottish Government has sought to trigger the process, although you will correct me if I am wrong. What are your views on the efficacy of the IGR system, both at ministerial and official levels?

I want to pick up on the point that Mr Bibby made about there being a lack of public transport. Some members of the committee travelled to Dumfries to meet various cultural organisations there. The Stove Network—which is a tremendous organisation that is based in the centre of Dumfries—raised the issue of the difficulty that people in the countryside face in getting a bus into Dumfries to attend events that the organisation holds. What can the Government do to drive change so that we can remove that barrier to cultural participation, which is a particular issue in rural areas?

The title of the inquiry is “How is Devolution Changing post-EU?”; it is not “What is the State of Devolution at Present?”

I know your general views on this well, cabinet secretary, but you mentioned some aspects, such as the use of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, and the UK Government funding in devolved areas, none of which could be argued is against the devolution settlement. Some might say that it is intrinsic to the devolution settlement. To what extent do you think that Brexit has been the catalyst for changes to attitudes, or not?

Thank you.

I would like to touch on the Sewel convention, as it overlaps with some of what we have just been discussing. The committee has taken the unanimous view that the Sewel convention is under strain. There have been some very high-profile examples post-Brexit of the Scottish Parliament not consenting to legislation, but there have also been several examples of the Scottish Parliament consenting to legislation post-Brexit in areas such as fisheries and farming. For example, in 2021, the Scottish Parliament gave consent to eight UK bills. Only last night, we voted on an LCM on the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. Your Government’s legislative consent memorandum to that bill said:

“The Scottish Government remains supportive of the intent of the Bill and believes that engagement has been good overall between officials.”

There are clearly tensions and strains in the use of the Sewel convention, but do you agree that this is about politics and personalities and that, at the official level, day to day, the Sewel convention still works?

On Alasdair Allan’s question about Westminster sovereignty, we all know one another’s constitutional positions but, ultimately, devolution is what it says it is: it is not the surrender of power but the devolution of power. Intrinsic to the 1998 settlement is the understanding that the UK Government can still legislate in devolved areas. Ultimately, however much some people might dislike it and might want Scotland to be independent, devolution entails some reservation of power. As it is set up, that is just the nature of the beast—there is a reserving, or a withholding, of power.

Let us move on to the question of Scotland’s international presence through Scottish Government offices. Are those offices in the right places in the world? We are not in the global south or, I think, in South America or Africa, with the exception of Malawi. Should we be? Should we redirect and refocus? We cannot be everywhere, because resources are limited.

I might start with Gareth Williams, given his remit.

That is really interesting, because markets change, with some falling away and others growing, and keeping tabs on such changes will be a really important dimension.

Anthony, do you have anything to add?

I am glad that you mentioned that, because I was not going to. I note Ben Macpherson’s earlier questions. I do not think that it is worth revisiting the well-documented arguments that have been had in recent months. However, for the sake of balance, it is worth stating that I do not think that the UK Government has ever said that the Scottish Government should not have an international presence or that it should not promote trade. The argument has been about policy in particular and the limits of devolved and reserved powers.

That aside, would you agree, whether it is for trade, development or tourism, that it would be better for both the Scottish and UK Governments to work together to promote Scotland? Is that a fair comment?

I see that you are all nodding your heads. If anyone has any observations to make on how that dynamic works, I would be interested to hear them. For example, we know that some of the Scottish Government’s international offices are located in UK embassies.

Does anyone else have any observations to make?

Good morning. I want to pick up on that point about good global citizens. We heard evidence about that from the Scottish Council on Global Affairs at last week’s meeting. It is a subjective term. I think that we can all agree on some basic norms that a good global citizen should adhere to. Mark Ruskell touched on the climate, for example. Is it a useful concept for us to promote, notwithstanding the good intentions behind it?