 The next item of business is a debate on motion 2937, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee, on a written agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. May I ask those who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the committee. Around five minutes, please, Mr Crawford. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to open this debate today on behalf of the Finance and Constitution Committee. Now, whilst it might not be the most exciting debate, nevertheless this short debate is a very important debate. The origins of the agreement that we are considering today relates back to the work of the Devolution Further Powers Committee, of which I was also the convener in the last session of Parliament. The Devolution Further Powers Committee undertook a wide range of work on the issue of intergovernmental relations, which I'll call IGR from now on in, drawing upon the comments that the Smith Commission made in regards to the issue in its report. It's worth recalling what Lord Smith himself had to say. Throughout the course of the commission, the issue of weak intergovernmental working was repeatedly raised as a problem. That current situation, coupled with what will be a stronger Scottish Parliament and a more complex devolution settlement, means that the problem needs to be fixed. Both Governments need to work together to create a more productive, robust, visible and transparent relationship. The Devolution Further Powers Committee report on the subject made a range of recommendations, including that a new written agreement on parliamentary oversight of IGR between the Scottish Parliament and Government should be developed. In particular, the committee recommended that the information provided by the Scottish Government with regard to IGR must enable parliamentary scrutiny of formal interministerial meetings before and after such meetings. In March 2016, the Deputy First Minister, on behalf of the Scottish Government and the Devolution Further Powers Committee, reached an agreement on the written agreement on IGR. However, due to the proximity of dissolution, unfortunately there was not time for the Parliament as a whole to consider this agreement. In a nutshell, the written agreement establishes three principles for governing the relationship between the Parliament and the Government, those being transparency, accountability and, importantly, the respect of confidentiality of discussions between Governments. In particular, the agreement requires the Scottish Government to provide the Scottish Parliament with information regarding the Scottish Government's participation in formal and ministerial inter-governmental meetings, as well as to any concordats, agreements and memorandums of understanding that the Scottish Government enters into. In addition, the agreement requires the Scottish Government to prepare an annual report on IGR and to provide that to the relevant committee of the Parliament. The report is intended to summarise IGR activity. The Scottish Government is undertaken in the previous year and also provides information on issues that are likely to emerge in the forthcoming year. On the extension of the Finance Committee's remit to include constitutional issues earlier this year, the Finance and Constitution Committee then considered the agreement and agreed to its contents as a successor committee in this session of Parliament. However, the Scottish Government's IGR activity is clearly wider in scope than the remit of just the Finance and Constitution Committee. Accordingly, as a result of that, the committee also agreed to seek a debate, as had been the original intention of the Devolution for the Powers Committee, whereby Parliament could consider the agreement given the broader scope of its reach. It is very interesting to note that, in its report into institutional relations in the United Kingdom published this morning—hard to get your tongue round that one—the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee made comment about the agreement that we are discussing today. In short, it welcomed the agreement as a model of good practice that other jurisdictions can learn from. It has recommended that the UK Government provide the House of Commons and Lords with the similar transparency that we intend in Scotland. With that by the way of background, the agreement is intended to improve the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the formal inter-governmental relations of the Scottish Government in this new era of devolution that we are entering into with an increased range of powers being shared between the Scottish and UK Governments, as well as the negotiations that will be on-going with regard to Brexit. It is imperative that this Parliament can effectively scrutinise inter-governmental relations. The agreement is intended to provide a mechanism via which scrutiny of inter-governmental relations can be undertaken more effectively. I will not go so far as to suggest that the agreement is in any way historic, but it is nevertheless an important statement of intent. I therefore move the motion in the name of the Finance and Constitution Committee. I thank the Finance and Constitution Committee for bringing this debate on the written agreement on parliamentary oversight of inter-governmental relations to the chamber this afternoon. I thank the convener for his thoughtful opening remarks. Through his experience, having said as he has described as a cabinet secretary with responsibility for inter-governmental relations and his role as convener of the Devolution Further Powers Committee, Mr Crawford brings a valuable insight to the debate. Following on from the Smith commission, the report from the Devolution Further Powers Committee changing relationships parliamentary scrutiny of inter-governmental relations, which I have read with renewed interest in taking on overall portfolio responsibility within the Scottish Government, led directly to the production in March this year of the written agreement that we are discussing today. That report highlighted the importance of establishing clear and effective processes within which formal inter-governmental mechanisms to ensure the role of parliamentary scrutiny is facilitated. I believe that the written agreement, which was developed jointly between Government and Parliament officials, demonstrates the value of us working together effectively to achieve our common goals. The agreement sets a clear framework that signals the willingness of the Scottish Government to respond to the valid demands of the Scottish Parliament for stronger and more transparent scrutiny of our formal engagement with the UK Government and the other devolved administrations. As the Smith commission recognised, successful devolution of further powers to this Parliament requires the inter-governmental machinery between the Scottish and the UK Governments, including the joint ministerial committee structures, to be reformed and scaled up significantly. As you know, the October meeting of the JMC plenary did not sign off a new memorandum of understanding as planned. Given the overriding need to focus on developing a UK approach and objectives for negotiations before article 50 is invoked, in line with the commitment that the Prime Minister Theresa May gave to the First Minister at her meeting in July, the strength of the current inter-governmental mechanisms will be demonstrated by the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the JMCEN, European Negotiations, which has been established to take that forward. As the Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's Place in Europe stated during our evidence session on 16 November, we have entered the discussions in good faith and will endeavour to make good progress. We expect the terms of reference for the JMCEN to be honoured, and we will see in time whether we believe that that is happening, although progress to date has been slower than we would have wished. Mr Tomkins sometimes says that this Government does not have full diplomatic capability in the Scottish Government. That is all the diplomacy that I can bring, and that statement in terms of progress on our inter-governmental relations on the subject, which is being discussed. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is intimately familiar with the report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee published today, in which evidence from both Leslie Evans, the permanent secretary of the Scottish Government and John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, is recorded that the Scottish Government is positive about the United Kingdom's inter-governmental machinery. Derek Mackay? That is very timely, because I was going to go on to welcome some of the commentary around that, but also to reflect on the fact that the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament also needs to fully respect the agreements that have been reached in that regard. As the First Minister has made clear, the Scottish Government recognises that proper parliamentary scrutiny is a key element of the Brexit process. I am aware that the Minister for UK Negotiation and Scotland's Place in Europe has been keeping relevant committees informed of the meetings. Similarly, I have been doing the same as the Finance Minister to ensure that all relevant Joint Exchequer Committee meetings, called Lathrow, Tri Lathrow and others, are also informed of the relevant committee. We are not complacent so much so that our officials are working with Parliament's clerks to develop guidance material to raise awareness across the Scottish Government of the need to comply with the written agreement and to encourage Scottish Government officials to consider any implications of their day-to-day work. We look forward to continuing our work with Parliament. The background to the debate that was set out by the convener a few moments ago is the written agreement that was established between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government on intergovernmental relations. Intergovernmental relations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government are now more important than ever. Further devolution has created what is in effect a quasi-federal state in the UK. Scotland has two Governments—one Government here in Edinburgh and the Government in London—each with different competencies at different levels. There will be a whole range of issues on which it is important that both of Scotland's Governments work closely together and there needs to be high-quality engagement between them. In addition to that, there needs to be effective scrutiny of those intergovernmental relations at a parliamentary level, both at Westminster and here in the Scottish Parliament. As we have heard, that point was recognised by the Devolution Further Powers Committee, which produced a very helpful report on those issues in October last year. When taking evidence for its report, that committee heard from a number of experts about the weakness of parliamentary scrutiny in those areas. For example, Professor Michael Keating of Edinburgh University's Centre for Constitutional Change said that we have a very poor parliamentary scrutiny of intergovernmental relations. A research card out for that committee showed that in the whole range of other federal or quasi-federal states, the role of parliaments in scrutinising intergovernment relations was greater than in the UK. The House of Lords Constitutional Committee, which also considered those issues, stated that effective scrutiny of intergovernmental relations requires greater transparency than currently exists and the necessary structures and desire in Parliament and devolved legislators to scrutinise those relationships. It was in response to those concerns that the written agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government was entered into. The agreement requires the Scottish Government to provide to the relevant committee of Parliament, as far as practical advanced written notice of at least one month prior to the schedule of relevant meetings, enabling the relevant committee to express a view on the topic and, if appropriate, to invite the responsible minister to attend the committee meeting to address the issue and answer questions. That reflects the conclusion of the Devolution Further Powers Committee that the view of the Scottish Parliament needs to be taken into account before any intergovernment agreement is entered into by the Scottish Government. The key to that, Presiding Officer, is transparency. In the engagement with which this Parliament's Finance and Constitution Committee has had with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, we have so far established what I think is a positive working relationship with the cabinet secretary, being prepared to engage with the committee in relation to intergovernmental dealings with Westminster. I hope that that is the case for all cabinet secretaries, although it is just worth noting in passing that concern has been raised in other quarters about the lack of information that has been provided, for example, about the transfer of welfare powers to this Parliament, an issue that surely falls under the definition of intergovernment relations. We also know that Scottish Government ministers will often use these intergovernmental meetings to raise issues of concern that they have about UK Government policy in reserve matters. I did ask the cabinet secretary for finance at a recent committee meeting whether that process ever happened in reverse. It does not seem to be in the case that I under either the current or indeed the previous UK Government that happened. Although I was told by Michael Russell that when Jim Murphy was Scottish Secretary in the previous Labour Government, he was not shy in using such meetings to berate the SNP administration at Holyrood or what he saw as their policy failures, but clearly Conservatives and Government are more courteous. There is one other point that I want to make before closing, Presiding Officer. The Devolution Further Powers Committee recommended that greater inter-parliamentary co-operation in scrutinising intergovernmental relations would be beneficial. I look forward to seeing a stream of work developed whereby committees of this Parliament can work with committees in Westminster and elsewhere on a closer basis than has been the case in the past. I suspect that this debate will not make tomorrow's front pages, but it has been a useful opportunity to air important points about the machinery of government. I am very pleased to support the motion in the convener's name. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short but important debate on intergovernmental relations and the written agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. It seems quite a dry debate. The subject matter is quite important. If you look at the journey of devolution and the journey of this Parliament, how it has matured and how more powers have been transferred from Westminster to Holyrood, we therefore take on greater responsibility. At the heart of that, when powers have been transferred, some of the powers are shared or at least the interests are also shared. One of the key things in that is the importance of relationships between the UK and the Scottish Government and also between the Government and this Parliament. Clearly, that can become a challenge when you have Governments of different political parties. You might say that it was a challenge when the Labour Party was in power both at Holyrood and Westminster, but it is important that those relationships are able to work constructively and intergovernmental relationships. That agreement is fundamental to achieving that. I think that what is key to it are the principles that are outlined in the agreement of transparency and scrutiny. From that point of view, it is important that the meetings that the cabinet secretaries hold with their UK counterparts and that records of them are fully documented. Also, as the cabinet secretary has been good at doing, cabinet secretaries are available to come to relevant committees and before Parliament to give an update on on-going issues. It is important because of the importance of some of the issues that are considered between Governments. You just need to look at the number of discussions that have been around Brexit since the June vote and the number of debates that have been in this chamber. Clearly, that is something where there is a lot of contention but there is a lot of interest in this Parliament and the UK Parliament. On the finance committee, we have had no shortage of analysts come before us in recent weeks to give us their take on the potential implications of Brexit. It is very clear whatever you view on it is that there are serious implications ahead for Scotland and the UK. From that point of view, the discussions that take place are very important. Next week, we will see the publication of the draft budget. That comes with more financial powers than I have ever been devolved before. As part of that, we will get to view the block grant adjustment when it is eventually published. That is an issue that is crucial because there are forecasting elements and there has been prior negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments. That will be one of the true first tests of the intergovernmental relations and the written agreement. The final point that I would make is that it is important for Parliament and Parliamentarians because ultimately the decisions that are taken in terms of the transfer of powers, it is not just about the laws that this Parliament has or the money that the Parliament has, it is the impact that it has on people out in the constituencies and regions that we represent. From that point of view, it is important that there is proper accountability in place for discussions and agreements that impact people. From that point of view, I welcome the agreement that has been put in place by the Finance and Committee. John Mason, followed by Patrick Harvie, is of no more than three minutes please. I thank you for the opportunity to take part in this brief debate. The three principles in paragraph 8 are inherently fine, that is transparency, accountability and confidentiality, but I think that they can be difficult to reconcile and practice. That probably applies in all walks of life. For example, all committees in this Parliament want to be in public but do take some items in private. Previously, when I was in the Finance Committee, the block grant adjustment was a major issue around the time that we took over control of stamp duty and landfill tax. The negotiations dragged on and John Swinney was very limited in what he could say to the committee, and eventually we understood that the Cabinet Secretary and the Treasury split the difference on their disagreement over a phone call. Another negotiation between the two Governments concerned the Scottish Fiscal Commission and who would make the forecasts. That was a subject that we had debated in the chamber and committee many times and there was clear disagreement between the two Governments. On that occasion, the Scottish Government conceded the point in order to get a wider more beneficial agreement on the whole range of issues under discussion. Now we got hints on the Finance Committee about how negotiations were going along the way, but no real detail, despite committee questioning. I totally accept—I would not have expected John Swinney to be able to advertise ahead that he was willing to concede a particular point in the negotiations. One of the key aims in all of this is to allow committees to express a view before the intergovernmental meeting takes place. Going back to the example of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, clearly the committee had expressed, in fact, two different views, so the Government certainly knew what reaction in that case it would be getting. On that point, I was interested that, for the meeting of the GMC yesterday, 7 December, the letter from Mike Russell to Bruce Crawford was dated 5 December, that is just two days ahead. That may have been because he himself did not know about the meeting, but that clearly would not be enough time for a committee to express a view on a subject if it had not previously considered it. In the matters on yesterday's agenda, what the letter says is, although I am unable to provide a detailed agenda for the meeting, I expect the agenda to include substantive discussion on justice, security and home affairs issues. Again, I would hope, going forward, that that is not typical of the detail of the agenda. There are so many caveats in the agreement. It uses words like where appropriate, need for shared private space, respect for confidentiality and the fact that other Governments can refuse to release information. We have to see how that develops as it goes forward. For example, if agendas and minutes are not forthcoming, that would have to be looked at again. However, any formalisation of the process has to be welcomed and is a step forward and a lot better than no step at all. I think that those of us on the back benches expect as much transparency and accountability as possible, and those two principles should be the student-starting point. The first line of the agreement says that the Smith commission agreement considered the issue of inter-governmental relations in some detail. Whoever wrote that could give Sir Humphrey Appleby lessons in constructive ambiguity. As you are happily neutral in the chair, and as Professor Tomkins is closing on behalf of the committee, perhaps I am the only person who feels really free to say that the Smith commission did not have the time to consider any issues in adequate detail in my view. That was at a time when we were constructing a more complex relationship between the two Governments and the two Parliaments than had ever been the case before. Since then, we have seen additional levels, additional dimensions of complexity arising. If I thought that the Smith commission was a chaotic mess, I did not know the meaning of that phrase until I saw Brexit. We are now having to try to understand how inter-governmental scrutiny is going to take place in the context of this profoundly new world. James Kelly is right that this is not fundamentally a new challenge. It has evolved since the Parliament began. It may be that, at a time when a single party was in charge of the Government, or at least the dominant party in the Government, in both Scotland and London, it may well be that the inter-governmental relationships were more constructive, but perhaps less transparent to the rest of us and to wider society. At a time when relationships might go through their rocky patches, merely adding more transparency is not necessarily going to make matters more constructive. Those are both very difficult challenges to overcome. In that relationship, it is important that both Parliament and Government in reaching this agreement remember that that is not a relationship of equals. The relationship between Parliament and Government is not a relationship of equals, and that the Government is always accountable to Parliament in everything that it does. The commitment to engage actively with parliamentary committees is important, and certainly the minimum that we would expect. I am sure that all of us would agree that we would hope to see the same level of engagement with committees from UK ministers that we expect from Scottish ministers. It is not only SNP members who I hope will agree with that, because, when only the Scottish Government ministers put their case in front of committees, it may be that we do not hear the full picture as we should. I hope that Conservative party members will also argue that ministers in the UK Government should engage actively more so than they have done in the past with Scottish Parliament committees. Finally, a plea that when we do further changes in future—for example, when the fiscal framework comes due for review—we do it in a more calm, reflective, open and detailed manner than we have made changes to date. Adam Tomkins, to wind up the debate on behalf of the committee, please. I rise to make this short speech with reluctance and a heavy heart, not because I think that the subject matter is unimportant, quite the contrary, but because it should not be me making it. I am the deputy convener of the finance and constitution committee, only because my friend and mentor, Alex Johnstone, is no longer with us. There will be time for much fuller reflection on his unique contribution to Scottish politics in due course, but I could not make this speech this afternoon without first paying tribute to him. To business, Presiding Officer, as AJ would surely have wanted, intergovernmental machinery is a phrase designed to put even the most dedicated politics student to sleep. Even if our short debate this evening somehow escapes the attention of tomorrow's front pages, this is more a reflection of the peculiar priorities of the press than it is of the merits of the matter. For the truth is, intergovernmental machinery is now core to the success of devolution itself. Hitherto, in the devolved era, we have done as if a power is either reserved to Westminster or devolved to us, it is one or the other. But even if we did not quite realise it at the time, in those heady days that Patrick Harvie just referred to of the Smith commission two years ago, we created something new, devolution 2.0. There are still reserved powers and there are still devolved powers, but there are also shared powers, areas of government that are the joint responsibility in Scotland of both the UK and the Scottish Governments. Welfare and some elements of taxation are only the two best known examples. Now, in a parliamentary democracy such as the UK or Scotland, parliaments have two jobs to do. They make laws—yes, from time to time, they are supposed to make laws—and they hold the Government of the day to account by scrutinising the Government's policies, decisions and actions. In a parliamentary democracy we do not elect the Government directly, we elect a Parliament out of which the Government emerges and to which the Government is accountable. This is the essential constitutional framework within which the written agreement must be understood. It is an agreement, a written component of our famously unwritten constitution that sets out the framework under which this Parliament can hold Scottish ministers accountable for the policies, decisions and actions that they develop jointly with UK ministers in Britain's intergovernmental machinery. Sometimes that machinery is bilateral, as in the joint ministerial working group on welfare, and sometimes it is quadrilateral, as in the joint ministerial committee. However, it is essential that this Parliament is able, effectively and robustly, to hold Scottish ministers to account for what they get up to and, indeed, what they propose to get up to in these meetings. There can be no hiding behind the veil of executive secrecy. That is the very opposite of the openness and accountability that we rightly demand. The Smith commission generally and our chairman Lord Smith in particular were acutely conscious that all the UK's legislatures needed to do better in this regard. I commend the Devolution Further Powers Committee for taking this forward, and indeed I commend the Scottish Government for agreeing to that committee's proposals as to how to ensure that we in this Parliament are able to do our job properly and hold ministers to account. It is enlightened of Scottish ministers to have understood that this is not only in the Parliament's best interests, it is also in their own interests. Ministers who are open with the Parliament and its committees are likely to find it easier to explain themselves than ministers who are not. As Murdo Fraser mentioned a few moments ago, the row we had a few weeks ago about shared competence in the welfare field could perhaps have been avoided had ministers been more upfront in complying with the requirements of the written agreement. This written agreement is an excellent piece of work. It is fitting that Alex Johnstone was a member of the committee that developed it in the last Parliament, and it is fitting that the convener of that committee is in this Parliament, the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee. It is a privilege to serve with him and a particular pleasure to support him and indeed the entire committee in formally commending this written agreement to the Parliament. Thank you. That concludes our debate on a written agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I also thank our signers for signing—the British Sign Language—this afternoon's proceedings. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 3019, in the name of Jo Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for the next week. I would ask any member who wishes to speak against the motion to press their request-to-speak button now. I call on Jo Fitzpatrick to move motion 3019. Formally moved. Thank you very much. No member has asked to speak against the motion. I therefore put the question to the chamber. The question is that we agree motion 3019. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. There are four questions that we put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 2948.2, in the name of Adam Tomkins, which seeks to amend motion 2948, in the name of Jeane Freeman, on creating a fairer Scotland, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast the votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 2948.2, in the name of Adam Tomkins, is yes, 30, no, 88, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 2948.1, in the name of Mark Griffin, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Jeane Freeman, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote again and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 2948.1, in the name of Mark Griffin, is yes, 87, no, 30, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 2948, in the name of Jeane Freeman, as amended, on creating a fairer Scotland, our disability delivery plan, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. We'll move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 2948 is yes, 88, no, 30, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 2937, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on a written agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting of Parliament.