Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that. I ask the other panellists to give their thoughts on the system that should be in place for intergovernmental relations and how we can improve them. May I turn to you first, Nicola?

I welcome the panel. Professor Denham, I will start by picking up a point that you have just made. I also thank you for your written submission, which is welcome. I do not think that we in Scotland think enough about the English aspect of devolution. I was struck by your comments about your belief that tensions in the union stem from the conflation of the Government of England and the Government of the union, and that there has been a failure to delineate between the two.

With regard to intergovernmental relations, which is a major part of what we are looking at, what sort of system would you like to see in place? What system would be beneficial in mediating and leading to agreements between the component parts of the union in this day and age?

Last week, interestingly, we heard evidence from civil servants who talked about the interrelationship between the system that we set up and the culture. There is a view that, if we put the system in place, the culture will follow. I do not know whether you agree with that. I want to bring in Akash Paun as well, but do you have a comment on the culture, Nicola?

I am very glad that you made that point, because it emphasises the fact that we sometimes look at such matters just in terms of the UK and Scotland, but there are issues between Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and Wales and Northern Ireland. Often, that analysis gets lost in this discussion.

I will move to a different issue. You have already touched on the Sewel convention. Our inquiry is about the effects of Brexit on devolution. We are all aware of some very high-profile cases in which the Scottish Parliament has not given consent to post-Brexit UK legislation. Have the political tensions and pressures, which we are all aware of, that existed before, during and after Brexit led to these problems, or have we been incubating such issues since 1999? I ask that in the knowledge that you all have a very strong track record in working in the civil service throughout devolution, so I would be grateful for your views.

It is good to see all the witnesses. I am glad to hear such enthusiasm about appearing in front of Scottish parliamentary committees—you obviously have not been given a hard enough time by MSPs. [Laughter.]

I have a couple of questions. I am interested in the final point that Philip Rycroft made. I acknowledge what was said, but it is easy to downplay the commercial and economic reasons for the 2020 act. Do you have any view or observation on the economic reasoning behind the act? It should not be ignored, notwithstanding the compelling points that you made.

You have very clear views on the personalities and politicians involved, good and bad. To what extent is culture an issue with civil servants, especially those in Whitehall, and in relations between civil servants in Whitehall and the devolved Administrations?

Thank you for those answers.

I have a similar question, although it is more about intergovernmental relations. Obviously, a new system of IGR—the three-tiered approach—has been set up. Can anything be learned about problem solving from the recent agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol? I appreciate that that is a very different situation, which involves the UK and the EU negotiating, albeit on Northern Ireland. Does anyone on the panel have reflections on the negotiations, the ability of personalities to drive an agreement, and whether that is assisted by a mechanism of intergovernmental relations?

More broadly, I think that it was clear from last week’s evidence that there is an educational and development aspect to all those shows in terms of nurturing young musicians. We have touched a bit on that already. I think that it is true to say that there are many well-established musicians who credit their career development to those three stand-alone shows and that that has been integral to their success. Last week, it was made clear that the future of young musicians in Scotland will be bleak if those shows are lost. What reassurance can you give us that that will not happen?

Good morning to the panel. It is very nice to see some familiar faces.

My question is also about the Sewel convention. The clear view of the committee is that

“the Sewel Convention is under strain”.

However, it is also important to reflect on the fact that there are still many instances of the Scottish Parliament agreeing to consent. There are also specific instances of its consenting to what might be called Brexit or post-Brexit legislation on fisheries and farming.

To what extent is this about political differences, particularly as a result of the political pressures of Brexit? Are we simply seeing tensions arising over something that has essentially been incubated since the start of devolution, but is only now manifesting itself?

I will start with Huw Irranca-Davies, because I am particularly interested in his experience of consenting or not consenting and where that is happening.

I want to ask you about “Pipeline”, given the particular connection that the programme has to the Highlands and Islands, which I represent. The petition to save it has more than 10,000 signatures now. Last week, we heard about its importance locally. I know about that from first-hand experience, and I am sure that other members of the committee do, too. It provides a real local connection and knowledge about upcoming new musicians. I cannot stress enough the importance of that. For example, someone might hear a young local piper from their village or locality playing something, or someone in Spean Bridge will be heard in Stornoway. That is of immense importance. I cannot overstate its importance. What is your response to that?