Scottish Affairs Committee
Tuesday 14th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The Scottish Affairs Committee were very happy to welcome the Secretary of State, Douglas Alexander, and his deputy, Kirsty McNeill, and, of course, Baroness Smith, who is our ads. Thank you all for coming along this afternoon. We're looking forward to having this conversation with you on. I'm sorry I forgot about this meeting. Who now is the director at the Scotland office?You're very welcome. Thank you. Um, if I can ask, firstly, on the issue of Intergovernmental relations.
Secretary of state, the Council of Nations and Regions was a flagship UK government commitment. As part of the resetting of relations. But I understand it's only met twice since the 2024 general election. Is there a reason for that?And has it lived up to the expectations we had of it?
Secretary of state, the Council of Nations and Regions was a flagship UK government commitment. As part of the resetting of relations. But I understand it's only met twice since the 2024 general election. Is there a reason for that?And has it lived up to the expectations we had of it?
14:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, chair, and thank you for the warmth of your welcome to myself and to colleagues. My understanding is that under the 2020 Review of Intergovernmental Relations, the anticipation was that it would meet at least twice yearly. If I can maybe contextualise those two meetings that happen under that review in 2022, there was agreement as to three tiers of intergovernmental contact in a more structured way, the observation being that some of the original architecture had not yielded the frequency and and structure of contacts that had been anticipated.
Tier one level engagement at the portfolio level is done through the inter-ministerial groups. The middle tier, which is used to discuss cross-cutting issues that cannot be discussed exclusively at portfolio levels, is run through the inter-ministerial standing committees and the top tier, which is obviously led by the Prime Minister, contact with First Ministers and others. Again, to give you context to the committee, there have been 16 inter-ministerial groups since July of 2024. There have been six inter-ministerial standing committees since the general election. I attended one just last month, and the Prime Minister and heads of the devolved governments meeting has met twice.
As you suggest, in line with that annual commitment in the 2022 review. And the Prime Minister most recently called the First Minister after the Scottish Parliament elections on 12th May.
Tier one level engagement at the portfolio level is done through the inter-ministerial groups. The middle tier, which is used to discuss cross-cutting issues that cannot be discussed exclusively at portfolio levels, is run through the inter-ministerial standing committees and the top tier, which is obviously led by the Prime Minister, contact with First Ministers and others. Again, to give you context to the committee, there have been 16 inter-ministerial groups since July of 2024. There have been six inter-ministerial standing committees since the general election. I attended one just last month, and the Prime Minister and heads of the devolved governments meeting has met twice.
As you suggest, in line with that annual commitment in the 2022 review. And the Prime Minister most recently called the First Minister after the Scottish Parliament elections on 12th May.
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:39
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
No, that really is the top tier in the sense that that brings together, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister, First Minister of Wales, First Minister of Scotland. I think it's reasonable to observe, however, that if you like, that is the scaffolding of a series of contacts. That is pretty much continual. The vast majority of engagement happens outside of these formal structures. Again, in preparation for the committee, I asked the numbers to be prepared between July 2024 and September 2025, 535 out of the 571 meetings between the UK government and the devolved governments actually took place.
Outside of those formal meetings. So the Iugr meetings are, if you like, both a safeguard and some scaffolding. But there's a huge level of contact between the direct between the devolved governments and the UK government on a regular basis, many of them outside that formal structure.
Outside of those formal meetings. So the Iugr meetings are, if you like, both a safeguard and some scaffolding. But there's a huge level of contact between the direct between the devolved governments and the UK government on a regular basis, many of them outside that formal structure.
14:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I understand the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform has said that the chance for that more constructive intergovernmental relationship following the 2024 general election, and I think his words were, had not panned out. Would you agree that the UK government's ambitions for a reset in relation to that has has not materialised, has not lasted?Or do you think this um, informal structure. Uses that framework that you described as as its hook in order to make all of this relationship work better.
14:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So of course the review was undertaken under our predecessors in 2022. But I have to say, coming back into position in government after many years, both out of government and away from politics, I think that regular cadence of formal meetings is actually helpful and beneficial to the relationship, and we have adhered to those requirements. But at the same time, it's right to observe the bulk and most frequent set of meetings happen outside of that formal structure. So I wouldn't I wouldn't see it as an either or.
I would see it as and, and in that sense, I think the government was absolutely sincere in saying we wanted to move away from the kind of performative disagreements, recourse to the courts, which would sometimes seen in the past, instead to work on the basis of mutual respect and understanding of the devolution settlement and the formal structures of intergovernmental relations, assist us in that endeavor. If you like. They are necessary but insufficient. There is a frequency of contact outside of that that I think serves us well as well.
I would see it as and, and in that sense, I think the government was absolutely sincere in saying we wanted to move away from the kind of performative disagreements, recourse to the courts, which would sometimes seen in the past, instead to work on the basis of mutual respect and understanding of the devolution settlement and the formal structures of intergovernmental relations, assist us in that endeavor. If you like. They are necessary but insufficient. There is a frequency of contact outside of that that I think serves us well as well.
14:42
14:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think it's probably for others to make that judgment. But certainly my experience is after many years away, there is a structured and frequent nature of contact between ministers that was not as present in the earlier years of devolution. And I certainly think, um, the political dynamics are pretty different after July 2024 as a Labour member of Parliament, if you have 37 colleagues representing a range of constituencies across Scotland, I think the character and nature of the interaction is going to be different than that which sometimes characterise that between our predecessors and the Scottish Government.
14:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, miss McNeill. Did you want to add something?If I could just add two things. So one is, since the May elections, I've been in meetings. With Mr. Flynn. Mr. Gittins. And we obviously have new members of the Scottish Government who know a lot about the Westminster system and how we work in Westminster and Whitehall, and they've been around matters of substance. So, as a Secretary of State said, we have the scaffolding of the things that are on a set rhythm, and then we're able to convene quickly when there's matters arising that are substantively important to each of the each of the governments.
And those have been incredibly pragmatic, problem solving, oriented kind of events. So just give you a bit of a flavour of the culture of those kind of inter-ministerial meetings when they take place. But the other thing that I think is helpfully built, the culture that the Secretary of State has just referred to of kind of pragmatic joint working, is that we have since the last time you were reflecting on Secretary of State, there's so much co-financing now between the Scottish Government and UK government that simply, in the course of.
Launching things, visiting things that we have both invested in. There's a lot of face to face contact in the normal run of things. Outside of the rhythm of those meetings. So we have a an informal interpersonal track that also runs alongside the more formal, structured cadence of meetings.
And those have been incredibly pragmatic, problem solving, oriented kind of events. So just give you a bit of a flavour of the culture of those kind of inter-ministerial meetings when they take place. But the other thing that I think is helpfully built, the culture that the Secretary of State has just referred to of kind of pragmatic joint working, is that we have since the last time you were reflecting on Secretary of State, there's so much co-financing now between the Scottish Government and UK government that simply, in the course of.
Launching things, visiting things that we have both invested in. There's a lot of face to face contact in the normal run of things. Outside of the rhythm of those meetings. So we have a an informal interpersonal track that also runs alongside the more formal, structured cadence of meetings.
14:44
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think if I could perhaps add chair building on Kirsty's point in relation to the matters of substance, the Middle East is clearly much in our thoughts today. Given the news overnight. I know the Foreign Secretary is in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as we speak. We've established a particular architecture of meetings to try and ensure that as the UK in its totality, we are appropriately prepared for all kinds of contingencies in relation to the Middle East. So we have established what is called the Middle East Response Committee, and that necessarily and appropriately involves the Scottish Government.
Because if you're talking, for example, about the availability of jet fuel or you're talking about the availability of diesel on different scenarios in relation to the Straits of Hormuz, that bears very directly on the capacity of, for example, the blue light services to be able to operate effectively. Connectivity to the Scottish islands. And in that sense, building on Kirsty's point, if you look at the Middle East Response Committee, that seems to me an example of something far outside of the established protocols, a bespoke solution to a very immediate problem.
It still continues to meet, incidentally. But in that sense, whether it's Kirsty, whether it's other ministers from across government meeting with their counterparts, that's that's a very clear example right now of the kind of pragmatic, problem solving approach that we are taking.
Because if you're talking, for example, about the availability of jet fuel or you're talking about the availability of diesel on different scenarios in relation to the Straits of Hormuz, that bears very directly on the capacity of, for example, the blue light services to be able to operate effectively. Connectivity to the Scottish islands. And in that sense, building on Kirsty's point, if you look at the Middle East Response Committee, that seems to me an example of something far outside of the established protocols, a bespoke solution to a very immediate problem.
It still continues to meet, incidentally. But in that sense, whether it's Kirsty, whether it's other ministers from across government meeting with their counterparts, that's that's a very clear example right now of the kind of pragmatic, problem solving approach that we are taking.
14:45
14:45
14:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That is the the most immediate bespoke example that comes to mind, partly at the initiation of the incoming cabinet Secretary, Antonio Ramirez. She was keen to establish, if you like, a cross Whitehall capability. It's only really been in position for a matter of weeks and months, but it's it's weighed quite heavily on all of us as ministers who are directly involved because. We have a responsibility both to make security of supply adequate public information at the appropriate stages, and what started as a if you like, foreign policy crisis very rapidly becomes a domestic political challenge and a domestic policy challenge.
And that's where very rightly, inappropriately, we have engaged with colleagues in the Scottish Government.
And that's where very rightly, inappropriately, we have engaged with colleagues in the Scottish Government.
14:46
14:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Secretary of state, the. As a key member of the UK government responsible for leading those intergovernmental relations, whereby legislation is introduced here and it crosses over into areas of the devolved competencies within the Scottish Parliament. We have heard as a committee about increasing challenges with the timeliness of that information being shared with Scottish Government and their officials, and the amount of it that is being shared relative to the contents of the competencies within a given bill. And as you're leading that work, are you doing so as the UK government's minister responsible for Scotland or the Scotland Office Minister representing Scotland in the UK government, which is it?
14:47
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So honestly, I see my responsibility as both in the sense that clearly within Whitehall you want to be Scotland's voice, both around the cabinet table at. Cabinet subcommittees and the various mechanisms by which we formulate policy and agree. Legislation. But at the same time you are Scotland's voice um more broadly and speaking on behalf of Scotland and areas of of reserved competence. So in that sense I would not see it as binary either or in relation to the point that you make in terms of timeliness of information.
I think the most recent example where I think you have a very fair and reasonable point was in relation to emergency legislation on steel, where necessarily we had to move at great speed, and it is a matter of record that we were grateful to the understanding and support of the Scottish Government in ensuring that that legislation was able to pass, but that was, if you like, the exception rather than the rule. I'm sure that in the course of our discussions today, we will have the opportunity to talk about the convention.
But again, if you look at it in practical terms and this bears on the chair's observation in relation to the reset, it's a matter of quiet pride to me that there hasn't been a single example since July 2024, where we've legislated without consent in relation to Scotland, and that, I think, speaks to the strength of those arteries and the and the effective working. Now, of course, there are going to be instances where the legislative programme of the UK government has to be supplemented by emergency legislation. That is where you ask for forbearance and the benefit of the doubt from your partners and colleagues in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government.
But as a matter of course, I do not think, given how heavy the first legislative session proved to be, we would have managed that outcome. But for the fact that in the bulk of instances there has been timely information and effective joint working between the government.
I think the most recent example where I think you have a very fair and reasonable point was in relation to emergency legislation on steel, where necessarily we had to move at great speed, and it is a matter of record that we were grateful to the understanding and support of the Scottish Government in ensuring that that legislation was able to pass, but that was, if you like, the exception rather than the rule. I'm sure that in the course of our discussions today, we will have the opportunity to talk about the convention.
But again, if you look at it in practical terms and this bears on the chair's observation in relation to the reset, it's a matter of quiet pride to me that there hasn't been a single example since July 2024, where we've legislated without consent in relation to Scotland, and that, I think, speaks to the strength of those arteries and the and the effective working. Now, of course, there are going to be instances where the legislative programme of the UK government has to be supplemented by emergency legislation. That is where you ask for forbearance and the benefit of the doubt from your partners and colleagues in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Irish Government.
But as a matter of course, I do not think, given how heavy the first legislative session proved to be, we would have managed that outcome. But for the fact that in the bulk of instances there has been timely information and effective joint working between the government.
14:49
14:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, again, I don't want to sound immodest. It's probably for others to make that judgement. And people are never backwards in coming forwards in their views of any politician. I suppose as I look back over the last 8 or 9 months, the fact that we secured more than £100 million in terms of the ethylene plant at Grangemouth was a matter of choice and not chance, and I worked very hard with colleagues around government to make sure. Not only that, we guaranteed ethylene production for five years in Grangemouth, but we were able to guarantee for those workers a sustainable future in circumstances where there was a significant degree of peril.
Otherwise, of course, I contribute directly to the work that the government does more generally on Scotland's behalf. I am sure we will have the chance to talk about whisky. I accompanied, I think, for the first time any Secretary of State has done so. The Prime Minister, when we met Prime Minister Modi in India back in the autumn, which was a way of confirming and building momentum behind what's a truly landmark deal in relation to the Indian whisky market. The Indian whisky market is the largest market by volume anywhere in the world for Scotch whisky, but we've been in a position where tariffs have about 140%, have been a very significant inhibitor for exports.
And in that sense, being in a position to drive that forward with the Prime Minister, I think was an achievement. I'm very happy to share more.
Otherwise, of course, I contribute directly to the work that the government does more generally on Scotland's behalf. I am sure we will have the chance to talk about whisky. I accompanied, I think, for the first time any Secretary of State has done so. The Prime Minister, when we met Prime Minister Modi in India back in the autumn, which was a way of confirming and building momentum behind what's a truly landmark deal in relation to the Indian whisky market. The Indian whisky market is the largest market by volume anywhere in the world for Scotch whisky, but we've been in a position where tariffs have about 140%, have been a very significant inhibitor for exports.
And in that sense, being in a position to drive that forward with the Prime Minister, I think was an achievement. I'm very happy to share more.
14:50
14:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It will be very brief. Chair, Secretary of state. When I was at MSP, often at committees, we had to rush through consent and even suspend standing orders to get that consent through. Are you aware of that and what you are doing to actually make sure that the Scottish Parliament has time to actually take evidence and scrutinise consent properly?
14:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Firstly, can I extend my congratulations to you and your recent by election victory and welcome you to this committee?Um secondly, I would say I have, um deep bonds of family, friendship, kith and kin in the Scottish Parliament over the last 25 years. So, um, informally, long before I assumed the office of Secretary of State for Scotland, I was being told in no uncertain terms by family members, friends, best man's godparents to my children, the importance of effective joint working between Westminster and Holyrood. And I was elected first to Parliament in November 1997.
It was a matter of great pride to me to be able to legislate for the Scotland Act in 1998 I was um, really the first generation here in Westminster for whom devolution was a given, not an aspiration and was an opportunity, not a threat. And in that sense, I have been personally, politically and philosophically deeply committed to a two Parliament solution to Scotland's governance. For as long as I have been in public life. Now, of course, your observation is a fair one that there are always circumstances in where, um, more time could have been provided and circumstances could be different.
I can't gain see you on that, but I can assure you that there is a genuine and sincere desire on the part of the Scotland Office. The officials that I lead to make sure that we work effectively within the Whitehall system. They effectively have a checklist if you're in Defra or Disney's or other departments across government, adhering to timetables on devolution is an important part of the pre-legislative process to make sure that the legislation is ready and again, being a human institution, I'm sure there's always scope for improvement, but I can assure you, both through my role and the role of the advocate General in relation to the public bill, legislative committee and others, we are absolutely willing to speak up and make sure that if we have concerns in relation, not just to the sharing of information, but the timeliness of engaging appropriately with the devolved governments, we have absolutely no hesitation, hesitation in doing so.
It was a matter of great pride to me to be able to legislate for the Scotland Act in 1998 I was um, really the first generation here in Westminster for whom devolution was a given, not an aspiration and was an opportunity, not a threat. And in that sense, I have been personally, politically and philosophically deeply committed to a two Parliament solution to Scotland's governance. For as long as I have been in public life. Now, of course, your observation is a fair one that there are always circumstances in where, um, more time could have been provided and circumstances could be different.
I can't gain see you on that, but I can assure you that there is a genuine and sincere desire on the part of the Scotland Office. The officials that I lead to make sure that we work effectively within the Whitehall system. They effectively have a checklist if you're in Defra or Disney's or other departments across government, adhering to timetables on devolution is an important part of the pre-legislative process to make sure that the legislation is ready and again, being a human institution, I'm sure there's always scope for improvement, but I can assure you, both through my role and the role of the advocate General in relation to the public bill, legislative committee and others, we are absolutely willing to speak up and make sure that if we have concerns in relation, not just to the sharing of information, but the timeliness of engaging appropriately with the devolved governments, we have absolutely no hesitation, hesitation in doing so.
14:53
14:53
14:53
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you chair. My question is indeed um about trade and whisky tariffs. Scotch whisky is a major employer in my West Dunbartonshire constituency and of course across Scotland. It represents 21% of all UK food and drink exports, supporting 41,000 jobs across Scotland. The Scottish Whisky Association has worked very closely with the UK government as I understand it, on improving access to key markets and has warmly welcomed recent progress, as I do. Can I ask the Secretary of State to outline his work and that of his Department, to ensure whisky was, and is prominent in all UK trade negotiations?Is it always high on the agenda?Since 2024?Can I ask you to touch on the US tariff relief deal, but also more broadly on trade deals with China, Brazil?You touched on India, which I think comes into force tomorrow, and other emerging markets such as UAE and Thailand, for instance.
14:54
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um. Thank you. Um, I was trying to find a polite way of saying Scotch whisky doesn't just employ a lot of people in Dumbarton, but my recollection is there was quite a lot of geese employed by the whisky industry as well, given the bones there and the honking geese when you drove past them for many years in my childhood. But you're absolutely right to recognise that Scotch whisky is a cornerstone of the Scottish economy. It's a huge global success in terms of exports.
The industry supports about 41,000 jobs in Scotland, and that was very much in my mind, both when I was trade policy minister, which I was appointed to in July of 2024. And then when I became Scottish Secretary last year, um, I think to try and do justice to your question, it's probably appropriate to start with the global context into which we have tried to advocate and, and make the case for Scottish whisky. When we came into office in July 2024. And again, I had in a previous life been trade, investment and foreign Affairs Minister when we were part of the European Union, and it was almost a decade after that fateful Brexit vote in 2016, the promise of many of the Brexiteers at the time had been that we would be a buccaneering free trade nation, um, sailing the seas of a liberalising world.
And what confronted us in July 2024 was something profoundly different. We were in a world where not only geopolitically were we seeing the return of Russia and the rise of China, but we were also seeing a much more regionalised and protectionist world. And that, of course, was immediately prior to President Trump's re-election in the November of that year. So more divided, more protectionist, more regionalised world. I was charged with responsibility in coming into office, of drafting the new government's trade strategy.
And so we had to try and devise a trade strategy appropriate to those very different circumstances. And given the centrality of whisky, that was much in my mind. There were a few basic kind of compass points to navigate. Firstly, despite the post-imperial delusions of the Brexiteers, geography still matters in trade policy. It is not a coincidence that our largest trading partner remains the European Union. We export more than twice to Europe. What we do to the United States, our largest single country market.
Similarly, we had historically since Brexit, if you like, underperformed on goods, of which whisky is a key part and relatively overperformed in relation to services exports. So one of the key challenges was how do we get tariffs down in relation to exports, principally whisky and others?And again, if you look at the numbers, I looked them out before today. The volume of global imports affected by tariffs went up between 2024 and 20 25 to £2.64 trillion. So we were in a world of tariffs going up and barriers going up, rather than tariffs coming down and barriers coming down.
Notwithstanding that context, let us just run through some of the key questions that you asked in relation to India. As I say, I had forlornly and unsuccessfully as the Secretary of State for Scotland back in 2006, advocated for cuts in what were sky high tariff rates in India. But with the support and a great deal of effort on behalf of the Prime Minister personally, we secured a historic deal. That deal, if you like, was confirmed and blessed in 2025 when with the Prime Minister, I travelled to support him meeting Prime Minister Modi.
To give you a sense of scale of what that deal means for Scotch whisky, it's India's largest trading deal. It increases UK GDP by about £4.8 billion annually. It's the largest whisky market by volume. The tariff rates are coming down from 150% to 75% immediately, literally this week. And over the next ten years, we'll see further reductions of 40 to 40%. So if that was the only trading achievement of this government, I would be genuinely very proud, if not satisfied, in relation to China.
Again, the Prime Minister deserves a lot of credit. This was bilaterally negotiated with XI Jinping and with the Prime Minister during the visit that the prime Minister made to China again, after a period where we had basically gone from what was supposed to be a golden era of relations between the UK and China to the deep freeze, with no intervening period of calm, pragmatic negotiations. The China deal itself is worth about £250 million to the UK economy over the next five years. And again, China is the.
If I recollect, the 10th largest market by value. So getting a foot in the door with tariffs cut from 10% to 5% in China represents very significant progress. Then most recently in relation to the United States on the 30th of April it was announced as part of the UK US Economic Partnership deal, which had been previously negotiated that Scotch whisky would see the 10% tariff imposed coming down to zero. We are on schedule. I spoke to branch under the Prime Minister's business advisor this morning.
Who's on the ground in in Washington, DC. He assured me that we are both on track and on timetable for those tariffs to be reduced at the end of the month on schedule. But again, given that the US is the largest market by value, that alone, again is a very significant achievement. So I hope that gives you a flavour of the constancy of our focus on whisky, really. From July 24th through my time as Secretary of State for Scotland.
The industry supports about 41,000 jobs in Scotland, and that was very much in my mind, both when I was trade policy minister, which I was appointed to in July of 2024. And then when I became Scottish Secretary last year, um, I think to try and do justice to your question, it's probably appropriate to start with the global context into which we have tried to advocate and, and make the case for Scottish whisky. When we came into office in July 2024. And again, I had in a previous life been trade, investment and foreign Affairs Minister when we were part of the European Union, and it was almost a decade after that fateful Brexit vote in 2016, the promise of many of the Brexiteers at the time had been that we would be a buccaneering free trade nation, um, sailing the seas of a liberalising world.
And what confronted us in July 2024 was something profoundly different. We were in a world where not only geopolitically were we seeing the return of Russia and the rise of China, but we were also seeing a much more regionalised and protectionist world. And that, of course, was immediately prior to President Trump's re-election in the November of that year. So more divided, more protectionist, more regionalised world. I was charged with responsibility in coming into office, of drafting the new government's trade strategy.
And so we had to try and devise a trade strategy appropriate to those very different circumstances. And given the centrality of whisky, that was much in my mind. There were a few basic kind of compass points to navigate. Firstly, despite the post-imperial delusions of the Brexiteers, geography still matters in trade policy. It is not a coincidence that our largest trading partner remains the European Union. We export more than twice to Europe. What we do to the United States, our largest single country market.
Similarly, we had historically since Brexit, if you like, underperformed on goods, of which whisky is a key part and relatively overperformed in relation to services exports. So one of the key challenges was how do we get tariffs down in relation to exports, principally whisky and others?And again, if you look at the numbers, I looked them out before today. The volume of global imports affected by tariffs went up between 2024 and 20 25 to £2.64 trillion. So we were in a world of tariffs going up and barriers going up, rather than tariffs coming down and barriers coming down.
Notwithstanding that context, let us just run through some of the key questions that you asked in relation to India. As I say, I had forlornly and unsuccessfully as the Secretary of State for Scotland back in 2006, advocated for cuts in what were sky high tariff rates in India. But with the support and a great deal of effort on behalf of the Prime Minister personally, we secured a historic deal. That deal, if you like, was confirmed and blessed in 2025 when with the Prime Minister, I travelled to support him meeting Prime Minister Modi.
To give you a sense of scale of what that deal means for Scotch whisky, it's India's largest trading deal. It increases UK GDP by about £4.8 billion annually. It's the largest whisky market by volume. The tariff rates are coming down from 150% to 75% immediately, literally this week. And over the next ten years, we'll see further reductions of 40 to 40%. So if that was the only trading achievement of this government, I would be genuinely very proud, if not satisfied, in relation to China.
Again, the Prime Minister deserves a lot of credit. This was bilaterally negotiated with XI Jinping and with the Prime Minister during the visit that the prime Minister made to China again, after a period where we had basically gone from what was supposed to be a golden era of relations between the UK and China to the deep freeze, with no intervening period of calm, pragmatic negotiations. The China deal itself is worth about £250 million to the UK economy over the next five years. And again, China is the.
If I recollect, the 10th largest market by value. So getting a foot in the door with tariffs cut from 10% to 5% in China represents very significant progress. Then most recently in relation to the United States on the 30th of April it was announced as part of the UK US Economic Partnership deal, which had been previously negotiated that Scotch whisky would see the 10% tariff imposed coming down to zero. We are on schedule. I spoke to branch under the Prime Minister's business advisor this morning.
Who's on the ground in in Washington, DC. He assured me that we are both on track and on timetable for those tariffs to be reduced at the end of the month on schedule. But again, given that the US is the largest market by value, that alone, again is a very significant achievement. So I hope that gives you a flavour of the constancy of our focus on whisky, really. From July 24th through my time as Secretary of State for Scotland.
15:00
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And thank you very much for that very full answer. It does lead me nicely on to my second question, which is your role and involvement in the removal of the US tariffs on whisky, which have explained and that of the Scottish Government's role?Also, I think it is fair to say that that did really bring into the spotlight the extent of intergovernmental relations between your office, the Scottish Government and the UK government. So how can that be developed and improved now, now that the First Minister is restored or reappointed after the Scottish parliamentary elections?And are there any plans to meet with the First Minister, both from your office and the Prime Ministerial Office?
15:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Okay. So let's, um, set the context in terms of what was actually achieved on the 30th of April, because I think that's worth setting out for the record. And then I'll come to both of your supplementary points. Since February 2025, as the UK government, we were working to secure what turned out to be the Economic Partnership deal, economic prosperity deal with the United States. February 2025 is significant because that was the date of the initial meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Starmer in the Oval Office, and rightly at the time, that was recognised as a really successful meeting.
A successful meeting does not guarantee successful subsequent negotiations, but it certainly helps. And if you look, for example, at the very torrid time that President Zelensky had, or indeed the South African president, when visiting the Oval Office, that was not a given. And it was a it was a big win for us as the United Kingdom. Um, we tried very hard to get an economic prosperity deal done before what was called by the president. Um, Liberation Day, World Tariff day, we were unsuccessful.
Before that. Effectively, they shut down negotiations ahead of the famous holding of the tariff poster in the Rose garden. But since then we have been successful. We have negotiated preferential terms for now, a range of sectors of the UK economy for aeronautics, for pharmaceuticals, for automobiles. And we're in a position today where over half of British goods sold to the United States are now covered by preferential rates, which I understand is the highest proportion globally for any country. So if you like, whisky is part of a broader story in terms of sector by sector approaches that we were taken.
Whisky has always been a central aspect of our negotiations, not least given its economic significance that you describe. And I would want to pay tribute today to the work of the British trade negotiators, who I worked with very closely, both as trade policy minister, but also as as Secretary of State for Scotland, and indeed to Varun Chandra, the Prime Minister's business adviser, who happens to be on the ground today in Washington on the whisky deal. Um, ultimately, we worked very closely with the palace and I wouldn't want to share too much information on that, but it's right and reasonable to give very generous tribute to the work that His Majesty the King did.
And essentially he led on the direct discussions with the president during the state visit that took place in April, when the King and Queen were president in Washington, present in Washington, DC, and the implicit division of responsibility, if one is allowed a division of responsibility with a monarch, was that the king was dealing directly with the president and our negotiators on the ground alongside the state visit, negotiating directly with USTR, the US Trade Representative with the Department of Commerce and with the US Treasury, and that proved to be a very powerful coming together in terms of the announcement that was made on the 30th of April, um, as I say, I spoke to the Prime Minister's business advisor today.
Um, he was at pains to emphasise that we're on track and on schedule in terms of that announcement happening. In that sense, that's the that's the facts in terms of what was the role of the British negotiators, the economic prosperity deal always anticipated that we would do a sequence of deals sector by sector, by sector, and whisky, as I say, takes its place alongside automotives, aeronautics and pharmaceuticals more broadly in terms of the engagement of the First Minister under. The terms of the Scotland Act trade policy negotiations on behalf of the UK are a reserved matter and are held um as such.
And that's explicitly stated within the Scotland Act, if I recollect. Schedule five of the Scotland Act, which reserves foreign policy, including trade negotiations. In contrast, trade promotion is a shared competence. And in that sense it's perfectly appropriate and indeed welcome for the First Minister to be seeking to promote Scottish whisky globally. That is something that we engage in as a UK government, and we welcome and and encourage efforts made by the Scottish Government also in that regard. And in that sense, um it's a matter.
Of record that the First Minister was there in Washington the previous July for the dates were. Right. Um when he returned he said that um and this is a direct quote during President Trump's visit to Scotland in July, we succeeded in putting whisky firmly on the trade agenda. And I pledged to do whatever I could to help get a better tariff deal. Now, in that sense, it's welcome that he does whatever he can to help. But I hope, as I've been able to elucidate to the committee today, whisky was very firmly on the UK government's agenda.
Both. We had concluded the landmark deal with India. We were already talking to the Americans and we were talking about whisky before, during and following that particular visit in relation to the frequency of contact and discussions, um, I wrote to the I contacted the First Minister when I was appointed as Secretary of State and asked to meet at his convenience, but that invitation was not accepted. And he has not accepted the offer to, to meet at any point during my time as Secretary of State for Scotland, I wrote to congratulate him following the Scottish elections in May and reiterated that.
Offer to meet with him, but I have not yet received a reply. Um, but my door is open, not just to the First Minister, but to any member of the Scottish Government, because I think there's great benefit to Scotland and us working effectively and collaboratively together on a whole range of policies, notwithstanding the fact that we have not had that direct bilateral meeting in the regular course of events, um, in a range of different briefings and meetings with the First Minister, as it happened in my first week in the job, I had a.
Meeting, uh, a sheer briefing with him. I've had, I think, as I recollect, five briefings with him, uh, since then, including Deputy National Security Advisor briefings and others. I've known John for a very long time. Um, he graduated from Edinburgh just shortly before I arrived. I think he was working with the Coalfields Community campaign at that point. And in that sense, um, the offer stands. We're very keen to work collaboratively and effectively. There was one phone call between the Prime Minister and, um, the First Minister after the Scottish elections, when the Prime Minister extended his congratulations.
Um there was again, um I think it's fair to acknowledge um a divergence of views between the Scottish Government and the UK government as to the content of that phone call, because it was briefed out immediately after the call that the Prime Minister had agreed to discuss, um independence and a referendum following that phone call between the First Minister and the Prime Minister, I wasn't on the phone call, but I've seen the official minute of the call, and the Prime Minister was very clear that we were adhering to our manifesto, that we'd set out ahead of July 2024, in which we'd stated not only that, as a government we oppose independence, but we also oppose a further independence referendum.
But notwithstanding that, there is an agreement that there would have been a meeting with the outgoing Prime Minister, I would fully anticipate that, um, when Andy becomes the Prime Minister on Monday, that there will be further inappropriate contact with all the First Ministers. And I certainly hope that that's the start of an effective working relationship.
A successful meeting does not guarantee successful subsequent negotiations, but it certainly helps. And if you look, for example, at the very torrid time that President Zelensky had, or indeed the South African president, when visiting the Oval Office, that was not a given. And it was a it was a big win for us as the United Kingdom. Um, we tried very hard to get an economic prosperity deal done before what was called by the president. Um, Liberation Day, World Tariff day, we were unsuccessful.
Before that. Effectively, they shut down negotiations ahead of the famous holding of the tariff poster in the Rose garden. But since then we have been successful. We have negotiated preferential terms for now, a range of sectors of the UK economy for aeronautics, for pharmaceuticals, for automobiles. And we're in a position today where over half of British goods sold to the United States are now covered by preferential rates, which I understand is the highest proportion globally for any country. So if you like, whisky is part of a broader story in terms of sector by sector approaches that we were taken.
Whisky has always been a central aspect of our negotiations, not least given its economic significance that you describe. And I would want to pay tribute today to the work of the British trade negotiators, who I worked with very closely, both as trade policy minister, but also as as Secretary of State for Scotland, and indeed to Varun Chandra, the Prime Minister's business adviser, who happens to be on the ground today in Washington on the whisky deal. Um, ultimately, we worked very closely with the palace and I wouldn't want to share too much information on that, but it's right and reasonable to give very generous tribute to the work that His Majesty the King did.
And essentially he led on the direct discussions with the president during the state visit that took place in April, when the King and Queen were president in Washington, present in Washington, DC, and the implicit division of responsibility, if one is allowed a division of responsibility with a monarch, was that the king was dealing directly with the president and our negotiators on the ground alongside the state visit, negotiating directly with USTR, the US Trade Representative with the Department of Commerce and with the US Treasury, and that proved to be a very powerful coming together in terms of the announcement that was made on the 30th of April, um, as I say, I spoke to the Prime Minister's business advisor today.
Um, he was at pains to emphasise that we're on track and on schedule in terms of that announcement happening. In that sense, that's the that's the facts in terms of what was the role of the British negotiators, the economic prosperity deal always anticipated that we would do a sequence of deals sector by sector, by sector, and whisky, as I say, takes its place alongside automotives, aeronautics and pharmaceuticals more broadly in terms of the engagement of the First Minister under. The terms of the Scotland Act trade policy negotiations on behalf of the UK are a reserved matter and are held um as such.
And that's explicitly stated within the Scotland Act, if I recollect. Schedule five of the Scotland Act, which reserves foreign policy, including trade negotiations. In contrast, trade promotion is a shared competence. And in that sense it's perfectly appropriate and indeed welcome for the First Minister to be seeking to promote Scottish whisky globally. That is something that we engage in as a UK government, and we welcome and and encourage efforts made by the Scottish Government also in that regard. And in that sense, um it's a matter.
Of record that the First Minister was there in Washington the previous July for the dates were. Right. Um when he returned he said that um and this is a direct quote during President Trump's visit to Scotland in July, we succeeded in putting whisky firmly on the trade agenda. And I pledged to do whatever I could to help get a better tariff deal. Now, in that sense, it's welcome that he does whatever he can to help. But I hope, as I've been able to elucidate to the committee today, whisky was very firmly on the UK government's agenda.
Both. We had concluded the landmark deal with India. We were already talking to the Americans and we were talking about whisky before, during and following that particular visit in relation to the frequency of contact and discussions, um, I wrote to the I contacted the First Minister when I was appointed as Secretary of State and asked to meet at his convenience, but that invitation was not accepted. And he has not accepted the offer to, to meet at any point during my time as Secretary of State for Scotland, I wrote to congratulate him following the Scottish elections in May and reiterated that.
Offer to meet with him, but I have not yet received a reply. Um, but my door is open, not just to the First Minister, but to any member of the Scottish Government, because I think there's great benefit to Scotland and us working effectively and collaboratively together on a whole range of policies, notwithstanding the fact that we have not had that direct bilateral meeting in the regular course of events, um, in a range of different briefings and meetings with the First Minister, as it happened in my first week in the job, I had a.
Meeting, uh, a sheer briefing with him. I've had, I think, as I recollect, five briefings with him, uh, since then, including Deputy National Security Advisor briefings and others. I've known John for a very long time. Um, he graduated from Edinburgh just shortly before I arrived. I think he was working with the Coalfields Community campaign at that point. And in that sense, um, the offer stands. We're very keen to work collaboratively and effectively. There was one phone call between the Prime Minister and, um, the First Minister after the Scottish elections, when the Prime Minister extended his congratulations.
Um there was again, um I think it's fair to acknowledge um a divergence of views between the Scottish Government and the UK government as to the content of that phone call, because it was briefed out immediately after the call that the Prime Minister had agreed to discuss, um independence and a referendum following that phone call between the First Minister and the Prime Minister, I wasn't on the phone call, but I've seen the official minute of the call, and the Prime Minister was very clear that we were adhering to our manifesto, that we'd set out ahead of July 2024, in which we'd stated not only that, as a government we oppose independence, but we also oppose a further independence referendum.
But notwithstanding that, there is an agreement that there would have been a meeting with the outgoing Prime Minister, I would fully anticipate that, um, when Andy becomes the Prime Minister on Monday, that there will be further inappropriate contact with all the First Ministers. And I certainly hope that that's the start of an effective working relationship.
15:08
15:08
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you very much. Um, we're talking about tariffs. So we'll leave there. I'm more interested in sort of how whisky is being promoted across the other departments. And of course that'll be very much in your wheelhouse. Um if we look at the British Industrial Energy Industrial scheme, um distilleries are excluded from that. Um there's concerns about new labelling coming in which is going to have a cost for, for whisky. Obviously the deposit return scheme into Wales, including glass is of a concern and increases in spirits duty.
I've now seen actually the income to the Treasury for that fall by almost £100 million last year. So how is the Scotland Office actually working with these other departments to promote whisky?Because just that list shows that it's not going particularly well outside of tariffs.
I've now seen actually the income to the Treasury for that fall by almost £100 million last year. So how is the Scotland Office actually working with these other departments to promote whisky?Because just that list shows that it's not going particularly well outside of tariffs.
15:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um well I think I think a sense of proportion is probably necessary. If you look, for example, at the proportion of Scotch whisky that is subject to duty from the Treasury, and this is a long standing conversation with Scottish Whisky Association. The vast bulk of Scotch whisky is produced for export. And in that sense it's not an incidental matter to have struck. Landmark deals with the largest market by volume and the largest market by value. But of course, we've got a responsibility to work collaboratively with other departments across Whitehall.
Um, I think it was a previous prime minister who said to decide is to divide. Part of the challenge in government is always to, on occasion to say no as well as yes. So I'm not going to suggest that in every instance, every request of the Scotch Whisky Association can be accommodated. But again, if you look at the frequency of contact, not just between the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scotland Office, but the contact that Scotch Whisky Association had with me when I was trade policy Minister.
And continue to have with DBT that they continue to have with Defra in relation to issues of concern there in relation to agriculture and more broadly in terms of the discussions that take place across government. I have a fairly high degree of confidence. Not only that, the voice of Scottish whisky is is a powerful one outside of government, but is a voice that is listened to and engaged with in a respectful and constructive manner on a whole series of issues within government.
Um, I think it was a previous prime minister who said to decide is to divide. Part of the challenge in government is always to, on occasion to say no as well as yes. So I'm not going to suggest that in every instance, every request of the Scotch Whisky Association can be accommodated. But again, if you look at the frequency of contact, not just between the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scotland Office, but the contact that Scotch Whisky Association had with me when I was trade policy Minister.
And continue to have with DBT that they continue to have with Defra in relation to issues of concern there in relation to agriculture and more broadly in terms of the discussions that take place across government. I have a fairly high degree of confidence. Not only that, the voice of Scottish whisky is is a powerful one outside of government, but is a voice that is listened to and engaged with in a respectful and constructive manner on a whole series of issues within government.
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:11
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thanks very much. Secretary state, the, um first. Minister, I don't think ever sort of claimed to marshal the Department for trade or any other organ of the UK government in securing, um, tariff. Lifting. But he did play a central role. And I've heard your explanation of events, but slightly jarring with that is where Trump said President Trump rather said that John Swinney had worked very hard. He tweeted that congratulations, John. You were a big part of my thinking.
The Scotch Whisky Association credited the First Minister for his leadership in this issue. And against that backdrop and those actual facts, you, as a Secretary of state, accused the First Minister essentially of lying or misrepresenting what had gone on with the Scotch whisky tariff relief. Do you think it's appropriate for somebody in your position to either be that wide of. The mark on the detail, um or. To be plain wrong.
The Scotch Whisky Association credited the First Minister for his leadership in this issue. And against that backdrop and those actual facts, you, as a Secretary of state, accused the First Minister essentially of lying or misrepresenting what had gone on with the Scotch whisky tariff relief. Do you think it's appropriate for somebody in your position to either be that wide of. The mark on the detail, um or. To be plain wrong.
15:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I'm a product of a proud product of a Scottish state school and Edinburgh University, and I continue to believe in the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment. And in that sense, facts are important in this debate. And it's right to recognise that the First Minister received that message from the president. Of course, the president says a great deal of things and manages a whole series of relationships, as befits any politician. And it's really not for me to account for the actions of a foreign government.
I'm very happy to account for the actions of the UK government, but I hope in terms of the facts that I've set out in as dispassionate a way as I can, there is an appreciation that the UK government was engaged really from February 2025, that initial meeting between the president and the Prime Minister all the way through to the critical state visit that took place in April of this year. And so, while I am perfectly willing to recognise that I'm the First Minister has a relationship with the president, that is in many ways unsurprising given the Scottish heritage of the president and the continued interest that the president holds in Scotland.
Indeed, he holidayed in Scotland, uh, last year. Um. It's right to recognise the hard work of British civil servants who tirelessly far away from the cameras, have been doing the hard yards of the economic prosperity deal, have been working extraordinarily hard, not just on aeronautics or on pharmaceuticals or on automobiles, but also on whisky.
I'm very happy to account for the actions of the UK government, but I hope in terms of the facts that I've set out in as dispassionate a way as I can, there is an appreciation that the UK government was engaged really from February 2025, that initial meeting between the president and the Prime Minister all the way through to the critical state visit that took place in April of this year. And so, while I am perfectly willing to recognise that I'm the First Minister has a relationship with the president, that is in many ways unsurprising given the Scottish heritage of the president and the continued interest that the president holds in Scotland.
Indeed, he holidayed in Scotland, uh, last year. Um. It's right to recognise the hard work of British civil servants who tirelessly far away from the cameras, have been doing the hard yards of the economic prosperity deal, have been working extraordinarily hard, not just on aeronautics or on pharmaceuticals or on automobiles, but also on whisky.
15:14
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
But you all know from your previous roles that there's an awful lot about trade. That's about relationships and personalities. And as I said, the First Minister wasn't claiming to have marshalled the resources of the UK government, but he was claiming to have advanced Scotch whisky on a personal level. And the tariffs they're on with the president of the United States. And and in terms of the optics for somebody in an office of your level, wouldn't it be better for you just even if it was personally offensive or annoying to you, wouldn't it have been better for you in your position just to let it slide, rather than engage in that kind of sort of banal point scoring.
well attempted?
well attempted?
15:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Respectfully, let me read for the record exactly what he said, because I have the quote in front of me during President Trump's visit to Scotland in July, we succeeded in putting whisky firmly on the trade agenda. Now, I hope, as I've been able to do to the committee today, whisky was on the agenda, whisky was on agenda with India, whisky was on the agenda. Indeed, with the United States, whisky was on the agenda with China. One of my um observations as. About trade.
You say it's about relationships and you're right to recognise relationships matter in trade negotiations. But trade negotiations are also a matter of psychology and arithmetic. In terms of psychology. How much do you want the deal?And truthfully, President Trump is a formidable dealmaker. He doesn't give gifts, he does deals. And in that sense, the counterparty to that deal, appropriately, as you've recognised, was the Department of Business and Trade, the Prime Minister with the First Minister no doubt contributing his views as well directly to the president.
As you describe, the arithmetic matters because scale matters in trade negotiations. If you are a population of 75 or 80 million people and you are seeking to extend offensive trade interests like Scotch whisky opening of international markets, you are in a fundamentally stronger position if you're representing 70 million people than if with great respect to my fellow Scots were representing 5 or 5.5 million people. That is one of the reasons, frankly, I was so disappointed by the choice that we made in relation to Brexit, because again, if you've got 500 million consumers behind you in trade negotiations, it's little wonder that Europe's an international superpower when it comes to trade negotiations.
But I think this is a good example of where, um, to the clear and transparent benefit of the Scottish whisky industry, we have leveraged the scale and strength of the United Kingdom in the service of an industry that has a disproportionate influence on benefit to Scotland.
You say it's about relationships and you're right to recognise relationships matter in trade negotiations. But trade negotiations are also a matter of psychology and arithmetic. In terms of psychology. How much do you want the deal?And truthfully, President Trump is a formidable dealmaker. He doesn't give gifts, he does deals. And in that sense, the counterparty to that deal, appropriately, as you've recognised, was the Department of Business and Trade, the Prime Minister with the First Minister no doubt contributing his views as well directly to the president.
As you describe, the arithmetic matters because scale matters in trade negotiations. If you are a population of 75 or 80 million people and you are seeking to extend offensive trade interests like Scotch whisky opening of international markets, you are in a fundamentally stronger position if you're representing 70 million people than if with great respect to my fellow Scots were representing 5 or 5.5 million people. That is one of the reasons, frankly, I was so disappointed by the choice that we made in relation to Brexit, because again, if you've got 500 million consumers behind you in trade negotiations, it's little wonder that Europe's an international superpower when it comes to trade negotiations.
But I think this is a good example of where, um, to the clear and transparent benefit of the Scottish whisky industry, we have leveraged the scale and strength of the United Kingdom in the service of an industry that has a disproportionate influence on benefit to Scotland.
15:16
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Very quickly chair. You talked earlier on about your inability to meet or unsuccessful offer to meet with the First Minister since May. You'll know well that the First Minister has a policy, a long standing policy of engaging at ministerial level in the UK government with the Prime Minister. Um and so that's no small measure of why that might have been frustrating for you. Nevertheless, especially as you've already said, your long standing relationship with John Swinney personally, um, have you taken any opportunity to apologise to him for the way that you misrepresented his character?
15:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So firstly, there is a philosophical difference between us, notwithstanding our long standing knowledge and, and I hope, respect for each other, which is philosophically, I believe in devolution as a two permanent solution to Scotland's governance. And I. Right reasonably recognise, rightly and reasonably, the First Minister takes a different view because he constantly seeks to argue for, given his nationalist philosophy, the belief that the best governance for Scotland is a single permanent solution, a sovereign state for Scotland. Respectfully, I disagree with that. But in that sense there is a complete coherence and consistency in my mind between believing, both in principle and in practice, in a two permanent solution and maintaining strong, effective working relationships between the two governments of the United Kingdom and of the Scottish Government.
It is inherent in the devolution architecture that a. We need that relationship of respect, but also it should be a relationship that recognises the boundaries of each respective areas of competence and responsibility. And in that sense, I hear what you say in terms of the the First Minister's desire to deal directly with the Prime Minister, and I am respectful of that. And on occasion they have had exactly that contact. But I can assure you that is without prejudice to the continuing contact that I, as the Minister charged with devolution.
Stewardship of devolution, architecture, and also advancing Scotland's interests, continue to have with the First Minister and other ministers. So I have now found the numbers. I have had six briefings with the First Minister, three DNase briefings, two Middle East briefings. I had one briefing on the Defence Investment Plan just last month. Um, but that's without prejudice to two bilateral meetings with the Deputy First Minister, three inter-ministerial standing committees, one briefing with Shona Robinson on the budget, two Mossmorran taskforce meetings where Scottish Government ministers were present.
So be assured, notwithstanding my earnest and genuine offer to meet with the First Minister, I am very happy to meet with other ministers in his government and continue to do so.
It is inherent in the devolution architecture that a. We need that relationship of respect, but also it should be a relationship that recognises the boundaries of each respective areas of competence and responsibility. And in that sense, I hear what you say in terms of the the First Minister's desire to deal directly with the Prime Minister, and I am respectful of that. And on occasion they have had exactly that contact. But I can assure you that is without prejudice to the continuing contact that I, as the Minister charged with devolution.
Stewardship of devolution, architecture, and also advancing Scotland's interests, continue to have with the First Minister and other ministers. So I have now found the numbers. I have had six briefings with the First Minister, three DNase briefings, two Middle East briefings. I had one briefing on the Defence Investment Plan just last month. Um, but that's without prejudice to two bilateral meetings with the Deputy First Minister, three inter-ministerial standing committees, one briefing with Shona Robinson on the budget, two Mossmorran taskforce meetings where Scottish Government ministers were present.
So be assured, notwithstanding my earnest and genuine offer to meet with the First Minister, I am very happy to meet with other ministers in his government and continue to do so.
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um, going forward carries a lot of weight in that sentence, given what we're looking at in the coming days. Um, my sense is that it, um, a huge. Opportunity for us in relation to devolution. Because as I say, I have um, carried torches on Calton Hill, I've stood in the rain in the meadows, I have rallied in George Square arguing for and advocating for a Scottish Parliament. So I am a very long standing advocate of devolution. But my hope was always that devolution would not stop at Holyrood and that, if you like, we would see not only devolution to Scotland but devolution within Scotland.
And in that sense, given the incoming Prime Minister's experience, both as an advocate for and a practitioner of devolution, I think there will be real opportunities to hopefully work constructively and collaboratively with the Scottish Government, looking at how we can. See, frankly, a change after a quarter of a century of devolution, I gave a speech to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities back in the autumn, where I called out what I described as the grinding centralisation that we'd seen, whether that was in relation to the fire service, whether in relation to the police service, whether in relation to repeated freezes of local government financing, thereby robbing local government not just of funds but of autonomy.
I hope that that proves to be prescient. Um, I welcomed the fact that the First Minister, after my speech, I note for a minute claiming that he was convinced by my speech, but sequentially after my speech, um, made the case for, um, regional economic partnerships being put on a statutory footing in Scotland. And Kirsty can speak to the weight and volume of work that we've been doing on the regional economy in Scotland. And so in that sense, I hope that as we look ahead to the Scottish Government's programme for government being published in September, given the arrival of a new Prime Minister who has so transparently evidenced in Manchester, the capability to use devolved powers effectively to drive city region's economic growth and prosperity, that.
That some of that thinking will cross the border and will inform and shape Scottish Government thinking ahead of their programme of government.
And in that sense, given the incoming Prime Minister's experience, both as an advocate for and a practitioner of devolution, I think there will be real opportunities to hopefully work constructively and collaboratively with the Scottish Government, looking at how we can. See, frankly, a change after a quarter of a century of devolution, I gave a speech to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities back in the autumn, where I called out what I described as the grinding centralisation that we'd seen, whether that was in relation to the fire service, whether in relation to the police service, whether in relation to repeated freezes of local government financing, thereby robbing local government not just of funds but of autonomy.
I hope that that proves to be prescient. Um, I welcomed the fact that the First Minister, after my speech, I note for a minute claiming that he was convinced by my speech, but sequentially after my speech, um, made the case for, um, regional economic partnerships being put on a statutory footing in Scotland. And Kirsty can speak to the weight and volume of work that we've been doing on the regional economy in Scotland. And so in that sense, I hope that as we look ahead to the Scottish Government's programme for government being published in September, given the arrival of a new Prime Minister who has so transparently evidenced in Manchester, the capability to use devolved powers effectively to drive city region's economic growth and prosperity, that.
That some of that thinking will cross the border and will inform and shape Scottish Government thinking ahead of their programme of government.
15:21
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
You did pre-empt my next question because, um, I haven't had a local government. Background. I know how important it is that there are greater powers and greater autonomy for councils in Scotland, but also our regions. I think there have been long standing calls for further devolution out of Holyrood to regions and local authorities. Um, Mr. McNeil, you wanted to come in there, if.
15:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You don't mind. Um, two things just to supplement what the Secretary was saying there about, um Andy Burnham's focus on Reindustrialisation, I think will be very welcomed by this committee and by people across Scotland. I think we're looking forward to working with everybody on that agenda. But the second thing is, and we have been talking about this more and more over the course of this year in the Scotland Office, that Scotland, much like the North of England, has talked about, often as if it is one economy.
And actually, as we all know so well, Scotland has a number of regional economies. And I think one of our tasks in the Scotland Office in the coming year will be to take the industrial Strategy, which has a very welcome focus on sectors that map very closely with Scotland's high potential growth sectors. That sectoral lens that DVT and the industrial Strategy take married to a place based lens that the Prime Minister. Incoming prime Minister is obviously very interested in taking. I think the Scotland Office is where that place based approach and sectoral approach will meet effectively in Scotland's interests.
So we've been doing quite a lot of thinking about how we can work with anchor employers, with higher education, with colleges and so on with others to make sure that we are getting regionalised growth right. So of course, we will want to be held accountable for the delivery of growth in and across Scotland. But getting down to the regional level is, I think, where we're going to focus a lot of our time in coming months.
And actually, as we all know so well, Scotland has a number of regional economies. And I think one of our tasks in the Scotland Office in the coming year will be to take the industrial Strategy, which has a very welcome focus on sectors that map very closely with Scotland's high potential growth sectors. That sectoral lens that DVT and the industrial Strategy take married to a place based lens that the Prime Minister. Incoming prime Minister is obviously very interested in taking. I think the Scotland Office is where that place based approach and sectoral approach will meet effectively in Scotland's interests.
So we've been doing quite a lot of thinking about how we can work with anchor employers, with higher education, with colleges and so on with others to make sure that we are getting regionalised growth right. So of course, we will want to be held accountable for the delivery of growth in and across Scotland. But getting down to the regional level is, I think, where we're going to focus a lot of our time in coming months.
15:23
15:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So far. But hope springs eternal. Um and in that sense, to be fair to them, I think they will be looking to. The incoming Prime Minister to set out his thinking in relation to a whole range of matters as it affects Scotland. Um and in that sense there has already been um some public statements from Stephen Gethins as I recollect, but that focused on the UK internal market rather than devolution within Scotland. But um it feels to. Me we've got a huge opportunity in Scotland um in.
Recognising the centrality of city regions as drivers of modern prosperity and I think um I really ask myself the question why we have not seized that mantle before over recent years in devolution again. Um, philosophically, I think nationalism preferences, the relationship between the individual and the nation and, and seeks to assert that, um, a nation should, in this case, in Scotland's case, be a nation state. So the primary identity has to be to be between the citizen and the Scottish national identity. I've always had a different conception of identity, which is a layered identity.
I think you can perfectly conceivably be a proud Glaswegian, a proud Scot, proud to be British and indeed proud to be European. And in that sense, I think that partly explains the aversion that we've witnessed in recent years to fully recognising the role of city regions and regional identities within Scotland in being not just sources of immense pride, but also drivers of modern prosperity. And I think if you look, for example, at Manchester, where Andy has has been the mayor in recent years, the example that comes to mind is planning.
New government starts out saying, I want planning to be slow, difficult, arduous and an inhibitor to economic growth. But we are in a position where an average planning application in Manchester takes 18 weeks today, and it takes 58 weeks in Glasgow. So if you are an ambitious business looking to make an investment or to develop campuses or premises, um Manchester starts with a significant advantage in terms of the speed and ease with which planning requirements can be achieved. Now, if you look across Scotland, one of the effects of the underfunding of local government in Scotland, despite the Barnett formula and the extra funding, the almost 12 billion extra that we as a UK government have committed has been the hollowing out of the planning capability and a lot of local authorities.
In some cases, as I understand it, even to the point where they use consultants rather than in-house planning specialists. That has a direct knock on effect in terms of economic prosperity and economic growth. And in that sense, I hope that both by the power. Of example, and by the power of persuasion, the UK government will be able to engage in a constructive dialogue about the role of regional economic strength within Scotland. And as I say, I took some heart from the First Minister's statement in relation to regional economic partnerships going on to a statutory footing.
I do not know if what is going to be in the programme for government of the Scottish Government in September, but I would hope that we would see a more. Full embrace of regional economic levers and growth than has perhaps been the case in the past.
Recognising the centrality of city regions as drivers of modern prosperity and I think um I really ask myself the question why we have not seized that mantle before over recent years in devolution again. Um, philosophically, I think nationalism preferences, the relationship between the individual and the nation and, and seeks to assert that, um, a nation should, in this case, in Scotland's case, be a nation state. So the primary identity has to be to be between the citizen and the Scottish national identity. I've always had a different conception of identity, which is a layered identity.
I think you can perfectly conceivably be a proud Glaswegian, a proud Scot, proud to be British and indeed proud to be European. And in that sense, I think that partly explains the aversion that we've witnessed in recent years to fully recognising the role of city regions and regional identities within Scotland in being not just sources of immense pride, but also drivers of modern prosperity. And I think if you look, for example, at Manchester, where Andy has has been the mayor in recent years, the example that comes to mind is planning.
New government starts out saying, I want planning to be slow, difficult, arduous and an inhibitor to economic growth. But we are in a position where an average planning application in Manchester takes 18 weeks today, and it takes 58 weeks in Glasgow. So if you are an ambitious business looking to make an investment or to develop campuses or premises, um Manchester starts with a significant advantage in terms of the speed and ease with which planning requirements can be achieved. Now, if you look across Scotland, one of the effects of the underfunding of local government in Scotland, despite the Barnett formula and the extra funding, the almost 12 billion extra that we as a UK government have committed has been the hollowing out of the planning capability and a lot of local authorities.
In some cases, as I understand it, even to the point where they use consultants rather than in-house planning specialists. That has a direct knock on effect in terms of economic prosperity and economic growth. And in that sense, I hope that both by the power. Of example, and by the power of persuasion, the UK government will be able to engage in a constructive dialogue about the role of regional economic strength within Scotland. And as I say, I took some heart from the First Minister's statement in relation to regional economic partnerships going on to a statutory footing.
I do not know if what is going to be in the programme for government of the Scottish Government in September, but I would hope that we would see a more. Full embrace of regional economic levers and growth than has perhaps been the case in the past.
15:27
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Sticking with devolution, the Scottish Parliament passed a motion calling on the UK government to devolve the powers to hold an independence referendum and the UK government gave its response a very clear response. Can I ask what position, what role the Scottish Parliament's position played in the UK government's position, if any.
15:27
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
If you like that, that was the request to which the answer was was given and we were mindful of the position that had been taken by the Scottish Parliament. It might be helpful, if you like, to draw the contrast between the years immediately preceding 2014, where, of course, we had that independence referendum and where we find ourselves in in 2026, in the years immediately before 2014, there was an absolute consensus between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Across Scotland's political parties and indeed Scottish civil society, that it was the time to have an independence referendum.
There had not, for example, been language in the manifestos of the governing party in Westminster at the time. In terms of the manifesto in 2010. Um, and we are in a position today where there is no such consensus. There is no such consensus within Scotland, and there is certainly no such consensus between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Um, I think it's also reasonable to observe that the position that the First Minister took in his own manifesto, the SNP manifesto, set the bar at an SNP majority.
Indeed, the wording said, based on the 2011 precedent, an SNP majority at this election is a mandate for the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament to enable an independence referendum to be held. So, from a position just weeks before the Scottish Parliament elections, where the bar, if you like, was an SNP majority, the position clearly shifted to a position where they were saying if we've got other pro-independence parties within Scotland, that constitutes a mandate. And of course, um colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are entitled to bring forward what motions they choose.
But the UK government's position is unchanged. We were elected on a mandate back in July 2024. 37 of US Scottish Labour MPs not only opposing independence but opposing an independence referendum. That consensus does not exist as existed after 2011, and so the position of the government that was set out in response to the request for the section 30 order was was unchanged.
There had not, for example, been language in the manifestos of the governing party in Westminster at the time. In terms of the manifesto in 2010. Um, and we are in a position today where there is no such consensus. There is no such consensus within Scotland, and there is certainly no such consensus between the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Um, I think it's also reasonable to observe that the position that the First Minister took in his own manifesto, the SNP manifesto, set the bar at an SNP majority.
Indeed, the wording said, based on the 2011 precedent, an SNP majority at this election is a mandate for the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament to enable an independence referendum to be held. So, from a position just weeks before the Scottish Parliament elections, where the bar, if you like, was an SNP majority, the position clearly shifted to a position where they were saying if we've got other pro-independence parties within Scotland, that constitutes a mandate. And of course, um colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are entitled to bring forward what motions they choose.
But the UK government's position is unchanged. We were elected on a mandate back in July 2024. 37 of US Scottish Labour MPs not only opposing independence but opposing an independence referendum. That consensus does not exist as existed after 2011, and so the position of the government that was set out in response to the request for the section 30 order was was unchanged.
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Secretary of State, just to develop that theme a little bit further, as my colleague Christine has said, the Scottish Parliament voted to devolve My colleague Christine has said that the Scottish Parliament voted to devolve competence over holding a further referendum on independence to the Scottish Parliament and competence over energy. Well, if you are the Secretary of State in the next Prime Minister's Government, I appreciate that's a big if, but thanks very much.
15:30
15:30
15:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So as Scots we made our choice. In 2014, there was the consensus that I described and no such consensus exists today. But more broadly, I think if you look at, um, some of the latest public service figures that we've got in Scotland at the moment, I think now is a time to focus on delivery rather than division, whether it's the A and E numbers that came out in May, the worst ever, whether it's more broadly the challenges that we face in relation to state education in Scotland.
As I say, I'm a proud product of a Scottish comprehensive myself. We used to be the envy of the world and indeed used to feel a degree of, um, confidence as to our relative performance compared with colleagues and friends and neighbours in England, that I think that there is a genuine need for a focus to be on delivery rather than division. Right now. Um, if I was to be appointed to this office. Next week by the incoming Prime Minister, I think the first thing I would do is probably listen rather than lecture.
And in that sense, let's wait and see how events unfold. But the position of the government historically has been very clear in relation to energy policy and elsewhere, that we benefit from the um. Broad shoulders of the United Kingdom. And while often in relation to energy policy, um, the claim is made by Stephen Gethins and others, I think Stephen actually had to correct his maiden speech in Holyrood. Parliament, actually, shortly after he gave it. But notwithstanding my admiration for Stephen, I think it's right to recognise the contribution that UK taxpayers across the whole of these islands make to making sure that we see the kind of renewables developments that all of us, no doubt often welcome when it comes to Scottish fields.
As I say, I'm a proud product of a Scottish comprehensive myself. We used to be the envy of the world and indeed used to feel a degree of, um, confidence as to our relative performance compared with colleagues and friends and neighbours in England, that I think that there is a genuine need for a focus to be on delivery rather than division. Right now. Um, if I was to be appointed to this office. Next week by the incoming Prime Minister, I think the first thing I would do is probably listen rather than lecture.
And in that sense, let's wait and see how events unfold. But the position of the government historically has been very clear in relation to energy policy and elsewhere, that we benefit from the um. Broad shoulders of the United Kingdom. And while often in relation to energy policy, um, the claim is made by Stephen Gethins and others, I think Stephen actually had to correct his maiden speech in Holyrood. Parliament, actually, shortly after he gave it. But notwithstanding my admiration for Stephen, I think it's right to recognise the contribution that UK taxpayers across the whole of these islands make to making sure that we see the kind of renewables developments that all of us, no doubt often welcome when it comes to Scottish fields.
15:32
15:32
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, chair. Um, so my questions in relation to legislative consent, and if I could just direct it to Baroness Smith, please. So previously you've described your role on Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee as a powerful mechanism for testing department's consideration of devolution issues before bills are introduced. But we have heard that devolved administrations have said that in some cases, there is not enough time is made available to them to review the draft proposals or to flag concerns about the legislation which engages the convention before a bill is formally introduced.
So, I mean, just how effective are your interventions in PBL?And can you just please explain to the committee what your department, along with the Scotland Office, is doing to ensure that the UK government departments consistently consult Scottish Government in good time before introducing bills that impact devolved areas?
So, I mean, just how effective are your interventions in PBL?And can you just please explain to the committee what your department, along with the Scotland Office, is doing to ensure that the UK government departments consistently consult Scottish Government in good time before introducing bills that impact devolved areas?
15:33
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you. I welcome the opportunity to to set out the work I do on that committee because it is, as I think I explained the last time I turned up. And for me anyway, the most powerful tool, a tool that I have, um, in terms of actually getting purchase on things and trying to make as effective a contribution and a difference as I can. But if I can take the second part of your question first, actually, because that's sort of what logically and sequentially comes first.
So before we get to that committee, what ought to have happened is good engagement between the bill teams and those developing policy and legislation in the UK government departments and the devolved nations. Um, now that's a departmental level, and there's a limit to what we can do to influence that. But inevitably those legal parts do it. And that's of course, where my department comes in. So we've done. Quite a lot of work at different levels to try to encourage departments to think about Scotland in every sense, whether it's Scots law or devolution.
Um, and just where Scotland sits generally. Um so part of that is at an official level, um and that's providing tools and advice to build teams because we, our experience is that there's patchy experience in that respect. So we've tried to provide to officials practical tools to help remind them. I think the Secretary of State was referring to that earlier. Um, where there's, there's sort of checklists and systems built into their work and, um, having, having asked my department about that since it's been introduced, they see a real change there.
So it's about embedding in the thinking, embedding in the systems, embedding in the policy development. Um, but then as it comes nearer to the legislative end of things, there then is an increased from the legal perspective, there's an increased interaction between officials and my team and counterparts in Northern Ireland and Wales as well. Now, all of that is designed to ensure that once I get to the committee where I can have purchase, I've got nothing to say or as little to say as possible because the system has worked well.
Now, inevitably, that's not always the case. So. And if it isn't, then that's my opportunity to to tell directly to the minister concerned that there's an issue. And it is um not. Always the case that the minister and it's often a cabinet minister that attends has been aware of that. So that's from my perspective as a member of the government, a good opportunity to put it in front of the person at the top. Um, but what I think I also have to observe is that, um, in response to the first part of your question, where things haven't gone as well as possible, and I think Secretary of State has acknowledged that, that that can happen.
And I acknowledge that to. Um, and just it is sometimes the case that work has been done at pace to respond to policy changes, different challenges and factual changes that have happened that require a change to the policy. And then the certainly from my side, the legal side has to catch up. What I think is a story of success in a large, large measure, because it is a small number of issues that come to the fore. And there's so much work that has gone well, which is the kind of unsung heroes of the story.
Um, and I, I see that under the bonnet, and I do think it's as a result of both these practical steps that we've put in place, but also a genuine going back to the reset of the relationship question, certainly from the perspective of the legal officials and our relationship with the Scottish Government, legal officials, um, is I honestly think it's exceptionally good. Um, so that I mean, problems arise. From different parts of policy area, but if it's a legal issue, I think we do incredible work in ironing out those issues, understanding them and having open and collaborative conversations that that mean that the number of times is, I think, a lot fewer, but of course have to acknowledge that sometimes it's an imperfect process.
Much.
So before we get to that committee, what ought to have happened is good engagement between the bill teams and those developing policy and legislation in the UK government departments and the devolved nations. Um, now that's a departmental level, and there's a limit to what we can do to influence that. But inevitably those legal parts do it. And that's of course, where my department comes in. So we've done. Quite a lot of work at different levels to try to encourage departments to think about Scotland in every sense, whether it's Scots law or devolution.
Um, and just where Scotland sits generally. Um so part of that is at an official level, um and that's providing tools and advice to build teams because we, our experience is that there's patchy experience in that respect. So we've tried to provide to officials practical tools to help remind them. I think the Secretary of State was referring to that earlier. Um, where there's, there's sort of checklists and systems built into their work and, um, having, having asked my department about that since it's been introduced, they see a real change there.
So it's about embedding in the thinking, embedding in the systems, embedding in the policy development. Um, but then as it comes nearer to the legislative end of things, there then is an increased from the legal perspective, there's an increased interaction between officials and my team and counterparts in Northern Ireland and Wales as well. Now, all of that is designed to ensure that once I get to the committee where I can have purchase, I've got nothing to say or as little to say as possible because the system has worked well.
Now, inevitably, that's not always the case. So. And if it isn't, then that's my opportunity to to tell directly to the minister concerned that there's an issue. And it is um not. Always the case that the minister and it's often a cabinet minister that attends has been aware of that. So that's from my perspective as a member of the government, a good opportunity to put it in front of the person at the top. Um, but what I think I also have to observe is that, um, in response to the first part of your question, where things haven't gone as well as possible, and I think Secretary of State has acknowledged that, that that can happen.
And I acknowledge that to. Um, and just it is sometimes the case that work has been done at pace to respond to policy changes, different challenges and factual changes that have happened that require a change to the policy. And then the certainly from my side, the legal side has to catch up. What I think is a story of success in a large, large measure, because it is a small number of issues that come to the fore. And there's so much work that has gone well, which is the kind of unsung heroes of the story.
Um, and I, I see that under the bonnet, and I do think it's as a result of both these practical steps that we've put in place, but also a genuine going back to the reset of the relationship question, certainly from the perspective of the legal officials and our relationship with the Scottish Government, legal officials, um, is I honestly think it's exceptionally good. Um, so that I mean, problems arise. From different parts of policy area, but if it's a legal issue, I think we do incredible work in ironing out those issues, understanding them and having open and collaborative conversations that that mean that the number of times is, I think, a lot fewer, but of course have to acknowledge that sometimes it's an imperfect process.
Much.
15:37
15:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'll follow up on that, if I may. Baroness Smith, one of the bills where we understand it perhaps didn't work so well was a health bill that went through um or is going through at the moment. What opportunity was given to the Scottish Government to consider those devolved provisions in the health Bill before it was introduced.
15:37
15:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
My understanding is that the bill was in fact introduced to the UK Parliament before the devolution issues were substantially resolved, which I think is what the. The guidance note suggests should happen. And, um, that obviously would be a cause for concern and would be one of those examples perhaps where things didn't go so well as you outlined.
15:38
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Well, I think it's fair to observe that, um, at the point of the introduction of a bill, it's rare, for example, for a legislative consent motion to be in place. And there's an obvious practical reason for that, which is that during the course of a bill's passage through Parliament, amendments almost certainly will be made to it. Um and so what it is that a devolved government is, uh, is looking at is necessarily a changing thing and a different thing. So it can be fair and appropriate on both sides.
And to be fair to the devolved nations, they may say, well, hold on a minute. I'm not sure. Not sure. I want to agree to something until I see the final shape of it. So I think it just simply is the case that it's it's not a moment in time. It's it's an ongoing conversation. Now, plainly, the longer that conversation has been going on, the more information that's been shared, the more comfort there is around either agreement or if there isn't agreement.
What the what the points of contention are, then plainly that's going to be better and go better. Um, and I'm not across the detail of what you're asking me about, but as I think I acknowledged in the previous answer, there are times when it goes better than others. Um, and certainly it is absolutely on our radar to, to do our best from whatever my office can do, um, to, to assist with those things not happening. Yeah.
And to be fair to the devolved nations, they may say, well, hold on a minute. I'm not sure. Not sure. I want to agree to something until I see the final shape of it. So I think it just simply is the case that it's it's not a moment in time. It's it's an ongoing conversation. Now, plainly, the longer that conversation has been going on, the more information that's been shared, the more comfort there is around either agreement or if there isn't agreement.
What the what the points of contention are, then plainly that's going to be better and go better. Um, and I'm not across the detail of what you're asking me about, but as I think I acknowledged in the previous answer, there are times when it goes better than others. Um, and certainly it is absolutely on our radar to, to do our best from whatever my office can do, um, to, to assist with those things not happening. Yeah.
15:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I understand this was in relation to, um, the particular health bill which was introduced the day after the King's Speech in 2026, and that in the legislative consent motion, the Scottish Government claimed that the Pre-introduction consultation was too short and incomplete and that it only had proper sight of the full devolution policy analysis document after the Bill had been introduced, and therefore concluded that it was unable to make a recommendation on whether the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill at that stage. So there seems to have been a bit of concern about the amount of time and the content of the policy document to.
15:40
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Well, very happy to take that away. And with my colleagues in Scotland office to look at that and see if we can identify particularly anything systemic or particular. Um, that wasn't particular to that. And that's and that would, you know, I mean, obviously each individual instance is unfortunate. Um, and that's absolutely not our intention to leave. Nations feeling that way. But certainly, um, what I'd be interested to know is, is it because of a deeper problem, a systemic problem or something that may translate into another instance.
And that would be very important to discuss. So I'm grateful for the committee bringing that to our attention. And we'll certainly, as two departments go and look at that.
And that would be very important to discuss. So I'm grateful for the committee bringing that to our attention. And we'll certainly, as two departments go and look at that.
15:41
15:41
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I can, I can I miss my colleague. Yes. Just very briefly. Um, and I'm also not, um, aware of the specific detail on this, but in the context of that particular timing and the timing of the King's speech, clearly there were, there was disruption in terms of the engagement between UK government and Scottish Government because of the Scottish parliamentary elections. Um, I had a conversation with, uh, with one of my colleagues in the Scottish Government in relation to how we could ensure as far as was possible, a smooth kind of interface around pieces of legislation.
Now, clearly, in this particular instance, that sort of slipped through the net. Um, but it was something that we were actively, looking at and really helpful to have that specific example because we can, um, Baroness Smith will pick that up and follow up.
Now, clearly, in this particular instance, that sort of slipped through the net. Um, but it was something that we were actively, looking at and really helpful to have that specific example because we can, um, Baroness Smith will pick that up and follow up.
15:42
15:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you for that question. That's a truly terrifying start to a question. I think if you're, um, referring to the memorandum of understanding in relation to the annual convention, work is ongoing on that. Um, I would start by saying I think I made this point earlier in practice. We've already strengthened the convention by dint of the fact that we haven't legislated without consent in relation to Scotland on a single occasion since we came into office. Um and, and that's not insignificant given, notwithstanding what we've just discussed, the range of legislation that we've passed.
Um the manifesto that I was elected on, um and indeed were you um committed us to strengthening the Sewel convention that necessarily is work that involves not just the UK government, although ultimately we hold the pen. It is with the devolved government as well. And in that sense, uh, I think it is more important than we get this right, than we do this in too much haste. And that's not an argument for delay. Incidentally, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that there have been exchanges with the devolved government in relation to this.
We are working closely with the devolved governments, and naturally we want to hear their views. We are making progress. Indeed, the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee, one of the committees I was talking about in relation to the chairs questions earlier, has specifically discussed the convention on three occasions in the past 18 months, and there's been very significant engagement at official level as well between the UK government, the devolved governments, and we want to take as collaborative and constructive and approach as we can. But in that sense, I can assure you that the work is under way.
Um the manifesto that I was elected on, um and indeed were you um committed us to strengthening the Sewel convention that necessarily is work that involves not just the UK government, although ultimately we hold the pen. It is with the devolved government as well. And in that sense, uh, I think it is more important than we get this right, than we do this in too much haste. And that's not an argument for delay. Incidentally, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that there have been exchanges with the devolved government in relation to this.
We are working closely with the devolved governments, and naturally we want to hear their views. We are making progress. Indeed, the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee, one of the committees I was talking about in relation to the chairs questions earlier, has specifically discussed the convention on three occasions in the past 18 months, and there's been very significant engagement at official level as well between the UK government, the devolved governments, and we want to take as collaborative and constructive and approach as we can. But in that sense, I can assure you that the work is under way.
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
That's okay. Chair. Um. Pleasure to be able to ask you a question at this committee. Um, the. Scottish Government have an ambition to introduce price caps to between 20 and 50 staples within large supermarkets. And there's been an assessment made relative to the Internal Market Act that it will not fall foul of the requirements of the internal UK Internal Market Act. What was the basis for that assessment?
15:46
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
So two. Two parts to this answer. One is if you are encouraging me to reveal any advice that might have been given by me, um, to the UK government, I regret that the law officer's convention prevents me from even telling you whether or not I've given advice. Um, far less what that advice is. Um, so, uh, in. Some senses, um, closes down the question, but.
15:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Reframe it just slightly then, because I don't want to ask you an unanswerable question. Um, if you could confine it then to, um, how it was that we could reach that assessment in the absence of what could be considered a lack of detail from the Scottish Government about precisely what it is they're seeking to do and how they are seeking to do it. How would we make an assessment on that basis?
15:46
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I'm going to give a slightly different answer. Um, which is to rely on my last answer. Um, that any advice that the law officers give within government is, is something that is protected by the convention, which is akin to the idea of legal privilege between a client and their lawyer. Um, and I think allied to that is the fact is. Uh, what I've discovered, perhaps a. Lack of understanding of the nuanced rule of law officers, which is that we, in essence, give legal advice.
And, and it really is as simple as that. Each individual department to whom we may or may not. And we may or may not have in any individual instance, give advice. It is for them to, to take that advice on board and, and decide their policy.
And, and it really is as simple as that. Each individual department to whom we may or may not. And we may or may not have in any individual instance, give advice. It is for them to, to take that advice on board and, and decide their policy.
15:47
15:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I'm not going to breach the, um, uh, convention that, um, Catherine has just spoken of. I would simply make a few observations that I hope are of helpful help to you. The UK Internal Market Act does not prevent the Scottish Government from introducing legislation. It's for the Scottish Government to design its policy and ensure that any legislation is within its competence, as set out in the Scotland Act. The mutual recognition principle in the UK. In the UK act specifically does not concern the price of goods.
Um. It is not necessarily the case that the legislation that you refer to that formed a central part of the manifesto will itself interact with the UK Internal Market Act. We will wait and see what the Scottish Government does in terms of the design of the legislation. And it's for the Scottish Government to consider proposing an exclusion to the act if they deem it so appropriate. So, um, I do recollect that the First Minister, during what was a fairly hard fought election campaign, said it would be quite the spectacle, I think, was the phrase that he used if the UK government sought to block price caps in Scotland.
He made that observation, notwithstanding the fact that, as far as I am aware, we have not taken a view because, for the reasons that you alluded to in your question, we have not seen the terms of the legislation. That being said, even just a cursory reading of the Scottish newspapers indicate that Scottish supermarkets, Scottish, former Scottish food producers may well have trenchant views in relation to any legislation that is brought forward, but ultimately that is for them.
Um. It is not necessarily the case that the legislation that you refer to that formed a central part of the manifesto will itself interact with the UK Internal Market Act. We will wait and see what the Scottish Government does in terms of the design of the legislation. And it's for the Scottish Government to consider proposing an exclusion to the act if they deem it so appropriate. So, um, I do recollect that the First Minister, during what was a fairly hard fought election campaign, said it would be quite the spectacle, I think, was the phrase that he used if the UK government sought to block price caps in Scotland.
He made that observation, notwithstanding the fact that, as far as I am aware, we have not taken a view because, for the reasons that you alluded to in your question, we have not seen the terms of the legislation. That being said, even just a cursory reading of the Scottish newspapers indicate that Scottish supermarkets, Scottish, former Scottish food producers may well have trenchant views in relation to any legislation that is brought forward, but ultimately that is for them.
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So first of all, it's for previous governments to account for what they did. But it's a matter of factual record in relation to the deposit return scheme that there was a divergence of views between our predecessors and the Scottish Government. Secondly, just for the record, I absolutely did not say what momentarily you suggested, I said, which was that the UK Internal Market Act would not, um, be relevant. Frankly, at this stage we simply do not know. And in that sense, my observation was, is for the Scottish Government to bring forward its legislation.
As I say, if you just read the Scottish newspapers, it is clear that there are very real concerns that have been expressed by some producers within Scotland in relation to the operability of the act. But um notwithstanding the First Minister's observations during the campaign and the suggestion that it was inevitable, the approach that the UK government would take, we have not yet taken an approach. And finally, in relation to the UK Internal Market Act during 2025, we concluded a review of the UK Internal Market Act. We continue to uphold the common frameworks as the way by which, collaboratively and constructively we work with the Scottish Government and other devolved governments expressly to try and avoid a situation where a recourse to the courts is the first resort, not the last step.
And in that sense, I wouldn't want you to leave the committee with the perception or to leave this hearing with the perception that somehow how the UK Internal Market Act was used by our predecessors is in any way a guide us to any future judgment that we may or may not make in relation to any piece of legislation touched by the UK Internal Market Act.
As I say, if you just read the Scottish newspapers, it is clear that there are very real concerns that have been expressed by some producers within Scotland in relation to the operability of the act. But um notwithstanding the First Minister's observations during the campaign and the suggestion that it was inevitable, the approach that the UK government would take, we have not yet taken an approach. And finally, in relation to the UK Internal Market Act during 2025, we concluded a review of the UK Internal Market Act. We continue to uphold the common frameworks as the way by which, collaboratively and constructively we work with the Scottish Government and other devolved governments expressly to try and avoid a situation where a recourse to the courts is the first resort, not the last step.
And in that sense, I wouldn't want you to leave the committee with the perception or to leave this hearing with the perception that somehow how the UK Internal Market Act was used by our predecessors is in any way a guide us to any future judgment that we may or may not make in relation to any piece of legislation touched by the UK Internal Market Act.
15:51
15:51
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you very much. Secretary of state, you have again highlighted that common frameworks are the way to discuss and decide policy with the devolved administrations. Um, but just to develop that for the Scottish Government, it said in January that it wouldn't finalize any frameworks in areas subject to the UK Internal Market Act. Where does this leave the the frameworks programme?
15:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So in terms of the numbers, as I recollect, we have eight out of the 30 frameworks that have been fully implemented to date, 20 are provisionally operational and are being used to agree policy and manage where different approaches are being taken by devolved governments, helping to deliver, we hope, a coherent regulatory picture across the UK internal market in terms of how do we get that number of eight upwards, um in terms of the timeline for finalisation with the devolved governments agreements, we would hope to finalise a further nine of the common frameworks this year and provisionally publish Zyrtec and provision of services for scrutiny as two others, we are awaiting steers from the newly appointed ministers, both in Wales and in Scotland, about fully implementing the remainder of the programme.
So, in the kindest possible sense, the ball's in their court were very keen and ready to move, but were awaiting direction from the incoming ministers okay.
So, in the kindest possible sense, the ball's in their court were very keen and ready to move, but were awaiting direction from the incoming ministers okay.
15:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I guess in life and professional life there are always paths not taken as a conceptual question. Could we have done it differently, I guess?Theoretically, that's a possibility. But I absolutely stand by the judgments that we made. And let me try and explain to you why we reached those judgments. Firstly, as Scots, we have a huge equity and status in the effective operation of the UK internal market. If you look at where we trade most, if you look at where we export most, if you look from whom we um, uh, import most, um, on one hand, that is the home nations of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, you don't need to look into the crystal ball. You can just look at the history book, look at the hit that's been taken to trade as a consequence of the judgment that was made in relation to Brexit, which was, if you like, a very clear example of new barriers going up in what had previously been a very effective functioning single market and, and common market. So in that sense, the philosophical question is how do you strike the appropriate balance between, if you like, regulatory divergence and the importance of a functioning internal market?And we thought deeply and carefully about that, as well as speaking to a whole range of Scottish businesses and indeed businesses that interact and deal directly with Scotland.
When we were proposing the terms of the internal market so that internal trade between the four nations is worth about £129 billion annually. So that was the basis on which we said we need to find a way that allows the Scottish Government more flexibility to legislate within its areas of competence, and we identified new areas for exclusion, while, on the other hand, upholding the centrality and importance of that intra home nation trade. And I guess, given I was responsible for the view, it's it's hardly hold the front page, but I think we got the balance right in that regard.
Secondly, you don't need to look into the crystal ball. You can just look at the history book, look at the hit that's been taken to trade as a consequence of the judgment that was made in relation to Brexit, which was, if you like, a very clear example of new barriers going up in what had previously been a very effective functioning single market and, and common market. So in that sense, the philosophical question is how do you strike the appropriate balance between, if you like, regulatory divergence and the importance of a functioning internal market?And we thought deeply and carefully about that, as well as speaking to a whole range of Scottish businesses and indeed businesses that interact and deal directly with Scotland.
When we were proposing the terms of the internal market so that internal trade between the four nations is worth about £129 billion annually. So that was the basis on which we said we need to find a way that allows the Scottish Government more flexibility to legislate within its areas of competence, and we identified new areas for exclusion, while, on the other hand, upholding the centrality and importance of that intra home nation trade. And I guess, given I was responsible for the view, it's it's hardly hold the front page, but I think we got the balance right in that regard.
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Um forgive me, I'm just looking for the number. Yes, 27 of them in the King's Speech, we expect to apply at least in part, to Scotland. And the Advocate General is very ably set out the process by which, in relation to the preparation of legislation, she and I both sit on the same bill committee and regularly pair up to ensure that Scotland's voice is heard, whether in relation to policy or law. But in that sense, um, we believe that Scotland will benefit substantially from the programme that we set out in May of 2026.
And as I say, 27 of those bills in some way, either in part or wholly apply to the Scottish jurisdiction.
And as I say, 27 of those bills in some way, either in part or wholly apply to the Scottish jurisdiction.
15:55
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. I will pull out one of those bills and won't be surprised to you that it's going to be the Energy Independence Bill, which obviously has the ban on new licences going into it, which does not benefit Scotland in any way, shape or form. Um what representations did did you make, did the Scotland Office make of the damage that that is going to cause. Um are you making representations to the member for Makerfield. Um as he enters office that, that um clause and others.
But that one in particular should not be in that bill and that we really do need, whether that's a new chancellor, energy Secretary who does support the sector, which is so important to Scotland.
But that one in particular should not be in that bill and that we really do need, whether that's a new chancellor, energy Secretary who does support the sector, which is so important to Scotland.
15:56
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So Catherine spoken very eloquently of the convention in relation to legal advice shared between law officers and ministers. I think I shall invent a new convention today, which is that I would not want to breach the confidentiality of the conversations that I have had with them. Andy, not least ahead of him becoming the Prime Minister next Monday. But I can assure you it is a very, um, central issue. Of concern to us in terms of the transition under way in relation to the North Sea.
It's a matter of record that I met with um the. Oil majors with UK and others along with the Chancellor immediately prior to the budget. I would observe that notwithstanding the very strong case that was made to us in relation to EPL, that meeting took place just days. Um or just around the time of the budget in circumstances where we had seen the American action being taken in relation to Iran. And in that sense, the news that greeted us overnight in relation to the further action in the Straits of Hormuz speaks to why originally the EPL was designed because under our predecessors, under Rishi Sunak in 2020, I can't remember the exact date.
22 I think, um, the EPL was designed to address excess profits generated as a consequence of geopolitical actions.
It's a matter of record that I met with um the. Oil majors with UK and others along with the Chancellor immediately prior to the budget. I would observe that notwithstanding the very strong case that was made to us in relation to EPL, that meeting took place just days. Um or just around the time of the budget in circumstances where we had seen the American action being taken in relation to Iran. And in that sense, the news that greeted us overnight in relation to the further action in the Straits of Hormuz speaks to why originally the EPL was designed because under our predecessors, under Rishi Sunak in 2020, I can't remember the exact date.
22 I think, um, the EPL was designed to address excess profits generated as a consequence of geopolitical actions.
15:57
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Understood slightly off from away from licences. But if the government had used its own metric of of then going into the GPM, then they still would have got the same benefit from from from an uplifting in profits from the Straits of Hormuz and Iran. So that's with respect, slightly irrelevant to the question of licences and the banning of them in the Energy Independence Bill. So is the Department. And will the Department either either you if you stay in place or someone else, be making a stronger representations as possible, but that clause must not be in any future energy bill because of the impact it will have on the Scottish economy, on jobs, on energy security, on tax and investment, primarily in Scotland, but in the UK as a whole.
15:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So the position of the government in relation to licences has been long established since the time of the manifesto in July 2024. I can assure you that while we have adhered to the terms of the manifesto, I have not been in any way inhibited in advocating for the interests of um Scottish producers and continued to make those representations. I'm rather old fashioned in relation to how to influence, essentially, what does the job of Scottish Secretary involve?In part, it is internal influence and in part it is external projection.
If you are trying to influence and persuade colleagues in cabinet, which is a big part of the job, um, reading your own name or policy recommendations in the public prints is not always, in my experience, the most effective way to effect change in any area of policy. So I would simply adhere to the point that I made in relation to Andy. I would not wish to breach the confidentiality of the cabinet conversations that I have been having over many months, but I can assure you that, uh, it's an issue that I am fully aware of in relation to the transition underway in the North Sea.
Thank you.
If you are trying to influence and persuade colleagues in cabinet, which is a big part of the job, um, reading your own name or policy recommendations in the public prints is not always, in my experience, the most effective way to effect change in any area of policy. So I would simply adhere to the point that I made in relation to Andy. I would not wish to breach the confidentiality of the cabinet conversations that I have been having over many months, but I can assure you that, uh, it's an issue that I am fully aware of in relation to the transition underway in the North Sea.
Thank you.
15:59
15:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
In the manifesto in 2024 on which I was elected, there were, if I recollect, 3 or 4 proposals for reform within the Scottish Government, of which the rule of the Lord advocate was one. Along with other changes that we recommended, as was set out by the Prime Minister at the despatch box last year, as I recollect, in 2025, our view has been given the nature of the role. The fact that the Lord advocate sits in the Scottish Cabinet. It would be better for that um to be initiated from Holyrood.
And in that sense, we continue to urge and want the Scottish Government to come forward. That was what the Prime Minister said at the despatch box. And in that sense, um I know that there has been a great deal of interest in this generated by recent, uh, court cases in Scotland. Um but we would not least in light of the recent um view of. The Law Society of Scotland continue to urge colleagues in the Scottish Government to look carefully at this question.
While recognising that the nature of the Lord Advocate's position is not exclusively a competence, notwithstanding the terms of the Scotland Act of the UK government, because it bears on a range of issues that are within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government. So in that sense, if you want a clear, definitive view as to where we where the words that the Prime Minister used at the despatch box very accurately reflect the position we have taken, which is we identified areas which honestly, if the Scottish Government had shifted its political views and Scottish Labour had been elected in May, I would very much hoped would have been part of an incoming legislative agenda for a Scottish Labour First Minister.
As I say, we look to um the programme for government that the Scottish Government will bring forward in September that affords a legislative opportunity for the Scottish Government to take action. But um on this one I very much hope that they will reflect carefully on what we have witnessed in recent years.
And in that sense, we continue to urge and want the Scottish Government to come forward. That was what the Prime Minister said at the despatch box. And in that sense, um I know that there has been a great deal of interest in this generated by recent, uh, court cases in Scotland. Um but we would not least in light of the recent um view of. The Law Society of Scotland continue to urge colleagues in the Scottish Government to look carefully at this question.
While recognising that the nature of the Lord Advocate's position is not exclusively a competence, notwithstanding the terms of the Scotland Act of the UK government, because it bears on a range of issues that are within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government. So in that sense, if you want a clear, definitive view as to where we where the words that the Prime Minister used at the despatch box very accurately reflect the position we have taken, which is we identified areas which honestly, if the Scottish Government had shifted its political views and Scottish Labour had been elected in May, I would very much hoped would have been part of an incoming legislative agenda for a Scottish Labour First Minister.
As I say, we look to um the programme for government that the Scottish Government will bring forward in September that affords a legislative opportunity for the Scottish Government to take action. But um on this one I very much hope that they will reflect carefully on what we have witnessed in recent years.
16:01
16:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think, given all the difficulties the Scottish Government has faced in relation to the particular court case, that I would not want to be drawn any further on. Um they have not sought to answer many questions in relation to the particular conduct of the Lord advocate or the general principle, in terms of how the Lord advocate conducts their business, both as chief prosecutor and senior law Officer for the Scottish Government.
16:02
16:02
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
I don't think it's helpful for me to comment on that, for the reasons that I think the Secretary of State has just outlined. I don't think it's helpful to get involved in that sort of individualized approach, and I really just align myself to the comments that the Secretary of State has made. Um, it's our view that the conversation is best started in the, in the Scottish Parliament, and we stand ready to respond to any policy initiatives that they take.
16:03
16:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I've been deeply troubled by the culture of secrecy. Uh, and, uh, general. Matters of, of conduct that have emerged in recent months in Scotland in relation to the former chief executive of the Scottish National Party. I have been, notwithstanding the questions that were asked by Mr. Dugan, sparing careful and considered in any public comments that I have made. Um and in that sense, I think it's to the credit of this committee that you have also trade with. Um, some care on what are sensitive but very important issues.
It is of course, a matter for the Scottish Affairs Select Committee to determine what issues you investigate and what matters you look at, but I know that there is from the public statements that have emerged consideration as to whether. If the Scottish Parliamentary Committee system does not step up to look at some of these matters, at least an openness to consider whether it would be appropriate for this committee to look at a range of matters that are, rightly and reasonably a matter of public concern. So I, like others, await with interest the judgment that this committee makes on those matters.
It is of course, a matter for the Scottish Affairs Select Committee to determine what issues you investigate and what matters you look at, but I know that there is from the public statements that have emerged consideration as to whether. If the Scottish Parliamentary Committee system does not step up to look at some of these matters, at least an openness to consider whether it would be appropriate for this committee to look at a range of matters that are, rightly and reasonably a matter of public concern. So I, like others, await with interest the judgment that this committee makes on those matters.
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:04
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. So turning to space launch and sector development. Last November, the government told us that it would set out its approach to supporting Scotland's space launch sector in a cross-government publication that was due to be released in the spring. Do you know when that's going to be published?
16:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Spring is a very elastic concept when it comes to Whitehall on occasions. Um, and I think spring can somehow be um. Extended in circumstances where we are likely to see a new Prime Minister take office on Monday. Um, I am deeply aware of both the very valuable work that this committee has done in both um, exploring, understanding and advocating for the space sector in Scotland and the urgency of these matters being taken forward. Because in preparing for, uh, this. Hearing today, not only did I take the chance to, to reacquaint myself with your findings and indeed the government's response to your findings in the space inquiry, but also check in with my colleagues in the department, uh, in DC as to the timings, my understanding is that, at least in the microclimate of spring, has now extended to the end of 2026.
So when I pushed officials today, I think yesterday, I was told that the the timing that was now under contemplation was the end of 2026. As I understand it, that's like the, the, um, the, the, the latest deadline, it may well be depending on what happens next week and the terms of the government's approach to space, that it could come earlier than that. But, but the advice I received was the end of 2026.
So when I pushed officials today, I think yesterday, I was told that the the timing that was now under contemplation was the end of 2026. As I understand it, that's like the, the, um, the, the, the latest deadline, it may well be depending on what happens next week and the terms of the government's approach to space, that it could come earlier than that. But, but the advice I received was the end of 2026.
16:06
16:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I will talk to colleagues in detail about that and give you specific details. Most of the inquiries I made in terms of details, both of the funding that was due to be spent, the interaction with much of the work that we've been doing, the Ministry of Defence and everything else got a kind of single line back that wait for the space strategy. But I'm very happy to make the specific inquiry in relation to the 20 million.
16:06
16:06
16:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I spoke at the time to Liz Lloyd, the the relevant minister, because it was a matter of real concern. And it's always regrettable when a business moves into administration. And my understanding is Alrex is still in the process of administration. Um, what became very clear in that dialogue with the relevant minister was that, as your own inquiry found, launch capability is an inherently risky business. Um, no matter what size of capital you have behind you, um, but also that as a UK government, we had been willing to invest tens of millions of pounds in trying to advantage a business that we saw would have significant benefits to Scotland, not least given the number of people employed in the north of Scotland, while being fully cognizant of the risk of the sector involved.
And and in that sense, you need to be willing to take those risks. Otherwise you effectively deal yourself out of of that, um, game. Ultimately, as I understand it, the commercial circumstances of the administration was not the absence of public funds, but the absence of their ability to raise further private capital matching, supporting and supplementing the public funds that had been put into orbex. So, of course, it is a matter of regret, but it is in the nature of, um, the development of these space technologies that some companies are going to fail.
And you then face. As a as a minister, a pretty important choice as to whether, notwithstanding the fact that you're the company in which you've invested has, if you like, relatively lost out to other competitors in a very competitive sector or does not have the private capital that you would wish to have seen come on board, you're going to continue to plough further money in when you don't see a commercially sustainable path forward for the business.
And and in that sense, you need to be willing to take those risks. Otherwise you effectively deal yourself out of of that, um, game. Ultimately, as I understand it, the commercial circumstances of the administration was not the absence of public funds, but the absence of their ability to raise further private capital matching, supporting and supplementing the public funds that had been put into orbex. So, of course, it is a matter of regret, but it is in the nature of, um, the development of these space technologies that some companies are going to fail.
And you then face. As a as a minister, a pretty important choice as to whether, notwithstanding the fact that you're the company in which you've invested has, if you like, relatively lost out to other competitors in a very competitive sector or does not have the private capital that you would wish to have seen come on board, you're going to continue to plough further money in when you don't see a commercially sustainable path forward for the business.
16:08
16:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well. Really, in the terms that I've described, which is it's a private sector business. Um we were willing to allocate significant levels of capital. I'm fully aware that this was a sector in which no, every company was going to succeed, but we wanted a horse in the race and were willing to back it with significant public resources. But we cannot and should not assume the responsibility for all of the commercial fundraising being undertaken by every company that we support in the private market.
And in that sense, as I say, in my understanding of what ultimately tipped the business into administration, it was the inability to raise private capital that proved to be the inhibitor. And and that's really a separate fundraise and a separate set of challenges than whether there was public resource available, because visibly, there had been.
And in that sense, as I say, in my understanding of what ultimately tipped the business into administration, it was the inability to raise private capital that proved to be the inhibitor. And and that's really a separate fundraise and a separate set of challenges than whether there was public resource available, because visibly, there had been.
16:09
16:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, in terms of of the European Launcher programme, that's a broader programme than simply this. This was, if you like, as I recollect, a German company that was part of the European Initiative. And in that sense we are working both through the. Let me get the terminology right. The NATO starlift, I think programme and also through the European um launch initiative that you describe working collaboratively with partners in Europe and indeed in NATO. And there is learning that is drawn from all of this technology.
I know that as Scots, we are very keen to see vertical launch capability from Scotland and to harness our first mover advantage. But the reality is, whether it is the Swedes, whether it is the Norwegians, whether it is our friends and neighbours in France who have long hosted the capability for the European Space Agency, there is shared learning that is acquired from all experiences. That is in the nature of scientific discovery that that will happen. But if you're saying, do we regret the fact that Orbex didn't manage to prevail within that competitive marketplace?Yes.
Of course.
I know that as Scots, we are very keen to see vertical launch capability from Scotland and to harness our first mover advantage. But the reality is, whether it is the Swedes, whether it is the Norwegians, whether it is our friends and neighbours in France who have long hosted the capability for the European Space Agency, there is shared learning that is acquired from all experiences. That is in the nature of scientific discovery that that will happen. But if you're saying, do we regret the fact that Orbex didn't manage to prevail within that competitive marketplace?Yes.
Of course.
16:11
16:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So, of course, we were in touch with the Scottish Government at the time of the um difficulties in the administration from Orbex and the sheer responsibilities in relation to development of skills desert, the relevant government ministry is actually undertaking this summer of 2026. Space Sector Skills Survey, which will aim to update our broader understanding of the transferability of those skills and, frankly, the need for a pipeline of those skills coming through because we're very committed to space as one of the frontier technologies we want to see developed in Scotland.
But in that sense, the space survey will the skills survey will give us a broader evidence base on which to make judgments in relation to what we can do. But in the immediate tactical terms, we made sure that we were in touch with the Scottish Government at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.
But in that sense, the space survey will the skills survey will give us a broader evidence base on which to make judgments in relation to what we can do. But in the immediate tactical terms, we made sure that we were in touch with the Scottish Government at the earliest opportunity. Thank you.
16:12
16:12
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Secretary of State. So with the UK, taxpayers lost millions from the UK funding, but also Scottish National Investment Bank invested millions into this company. You mentioned that in terms of the company couldn't raise private capital. And I would imagine that because the risks were too high for for private banks. So do you think we've got the right risk appetite for using public money on projects like this?
16:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's a really interesting question in the sense that I'm not entirely clear what is implicit in it. Is it that you want public funds to have a high risk tolerance and to be in the most competitive and sometimes frankly, uncertain market sectors?Or do we want a position where, notwithstanding the role, for example, of the Scottish National Investment Bank or the National Wealth Fund, we do not want them to assume a higher risk tolerance. There's been quite a lot of criticism, as I recollect, of Snib, that its risk tolerance has been too low.
But that challenges all of us as politicians, those of us in government and those of us in opposition, to have exactly the kind of exchange that we're having today. It is in the nature of capital and capitalism that risk tolerance is one of the most important assessments that needs to be made, both by an investment review committee, in terms of the allocation of capital and by entrepreneurs, in terms of the capacity to build a sustainable business. If you were to ask me what my personal view is, I don't think I'm allowed a personal view as the Secretary of State.
But, um, my own view is that we need, if we are going to see, um, these frontier technologies developed, um, to have a mature and reasonable debate and sometimes businesses that we back are going to fail. And if we don't have the tolerance to accept that, notwithstanding our best efforts and endeavours, sometimes these businesses fail, then we can have large numbers in spreadsheets or in government speeches about Scottish National Investment Bank or National wealth fund. But we probably won't be harnessing and deploying that capital as effectively as otherwise we should do.
But it's in the nature of of the deployment of capital, private or public, that sometimes you're going to have to, um, in a conscious and purposeful way, say that you're willing to take some risks.
But that challenges all of us as politicians, those of us in government and those of us in opposition, to have exactly the kind of exchange that we're having today. It is in the nature of capital and capitalism that risk tolerance is one of the most important assessments that needs to be made, both by an investment review committee, in terms of the allocation of capital and by entrepreneurs, in terms of the capacity to build a sustainable business. If you were to ask me what my personal view is, I don't think I'm allowed a personal view as the Secretary of State.
But, um, my own view is that we need, if we are going to see, um, these frontier technologies developed, um, to have a mature and reasonable debate and sometimes businesses that we back are going to fail. And if we don't have the tolerance to accept that, notwithstanding our best efforts and endeavours, sometimes these businesses fail, then we can have large numbers in spreadsheets or in government speeches about Scottish National Investment Bank or National wealth fund. But we probably won't be harnessing and deploying that capital as effectively as otherwise we should do.
But it's in the nature of of the deployment of capital, private or public, that sometimes you're going to have to, um, in a conscious and purposeful way, say that you're willing to take some risks.
16:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
But, but do you think maybe that's just the nature of it?You can't get private funding. So the only place they can, can come to is the public purse. So do you think it's almost automatic that the risk appetite would be higher for for public money?I'm thinking for Snib, for example, there has been multiple failures, multiple, multiple investments that they've made. You know, we've lost we've lost cash. And I guess it's almost looks like, well, you can't raise capital from, from a private bank.
So then we'll go to Snib instead.
So then we'll go to Snib instead.
16:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So what would I say?Um, I worked, um, with an investment firm when I was out of politics for almost nine years. Um, although it seems like a large allocation of capital by the Scottish Government to the Scottish National Investment Bank. My own experience is that um the scale and deployment of capital that is now under way through major institutional investors like private equity houses, means that the, the. Um war for talent to get world class investors. And that by that I mean individuals is extraordinarily competitive and challenging.
And a there are appropriately constraints on public sector salaries when you're looking at asset allocators working for elsewhere. And also the pool of capital is not as large as a lot of large institutional investors now have available. So I think if we are going to see a business organisation like Snib succeed a, it needs to have a large enough pool of capital that it attracts world class investors. We need to be comfortable with, um, the. Requirements of what it takes to hold on to that kind of talent.
Because if you, uh, were to settle and this is a hypothetical situation for less qualified, less skilled investors, then you end up with a higher failure rate than you would otherwise. So if you like, you need to allocate the capital. And that requires an exercise of judgment by the Investment Review Committee in Snib or in any major institutional investor. The quality of that judgment is the biggest determinant of whether that business or those businesses, the portfolio businesses, fail or succeed. And I absolutely hear you when you express concern in terms of some of the early investments that Snib has made, I think it also begs the question as to what is the appropriate level of political oversight and ministerial oversight?Are we entirely comfortable with setting up a national investment bank, in this case, by the Scottish Government, and then saying it's over to the investment professionals, or what are the tram lines that should be set appropriately in relation to public policy outcomes that you're wanting to see?But as I say, my view is if we're serious, we need to be serious that some frontier technology investments are going to fail.
And Orbex seems to be an example of where we put significant public funds behind them. As you say, they failed to raise money from the private markets. And at that point, you face a judgement as to whether, notwithstanding there not being a credible pathway forward for the business, do you pour public money in to backfill the lack of private capital?And I am not familiar with all of the details of this particular case. But I think the government has to be, or in this case, the public funds needs to be prepared to say no at that point as well as yes.
Otherwise, we're just regarded as dumb money.
And a there are appropriately constraints on public sector salaries when you're looking at asset allocators working for elsewhere. And also the pool of capital is not as large as a lot of large institutional investors now have available. So I think if we are going to see a business organisation like Snib succeed a, it needs to have a large enough pool of capital that it attracts world class investors. We need to be comfortable with, um, the. Requirements of what it takes to hold on to that kind of talent.
Because if you, uh, were to settle and this is a hypothetical situation for less qualified, less skilled investors, then you end up with a higher failure rate than you would otherwise. So if you like, you need to allocate the capital. And that requires an exercise of judgment by the Investment Review Committee in Snib or in any major institutional investor. The quality of that judgment is the biggest determinant of whether that business or those businesses, the portfolio businesses, fail or succeed. And I absolutely hear you when you express concern in terms of some of the early investments that Snib has made, I think it also begs the question as to what is the appropriate level of political oversight and ministerial oversight?Are we entirely comfortable with setting up a national investment bank, in this case, by the Scottish Government, and then saying it's over to the investment professionals, or what are the tram lines that should be set appropriately in relation to public policy outcomes that you're wanting to see?But as I say, my view is if we're serious, we need to be serious that some frontier technology investments are going to fail.
And Orbex seems to be an example of where we put significant public funds behind them. As you say, they failed to raise money from the private markets. And at that point, you face a judgement as to whether, notwithstanding there not being a credible pathway forward for the business, do you pour public money in to backfill the lack of private capital?And I am not familiar with all of the details of this particular case. But I think the government has to be, or in this case, the public funds needs to be prepared to say no at that point as well as yes.
Otherwise, we're just regarded as dumb money.
16:18
16:18
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
Thank you, Secretary of State. Um, the we did a fixed links inquiry here and the Department for transport said that the UK government's role in fixed link project is limited as transport is devolved. Now between 2000 and 2018. And thank you for your letter on this. By the way, um the Highlands Islands benefited from the EU structural funds to the tune of €1.2 billion. And along with national funding that was taken up to 2.5 billion. And wherever you go, basically in Highlands, a spinal route down the the Western Isles or the the road to Achnasheen or Malig or everything else had substantial had substantial EU funding.
Um, this has stopped entirely. Do you think at the time Boris Johnson said, I can assure you under my leadership, no rural area will be left behind. And I have pledged that more funds will be made available to address imbalances that affect rural communities. But he didn't deliver, and this current government is not delivering on that gap. For example, the Shetland Island proposal for subsidy tunnels needs funding. Do you think that the Westminster government has a role that they can play to help that project?
Um, this has stopped entirely. Do you think at the time Boris Johnson said, I can assure you under my leadership, no rural area will be left behind. And I have pledged that more funds will be made available to address imbalances that affect rural communities. But he didn't deliver, and this current government is not delivering on that gap. For example, the Shetland Island proposal for subsidy tunnels needs funding. Do you think that the Westminster government has a role that they can play to help that project?
16:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So thank you for the question. Firstly, I would observe that thankfully, my job is to defend the government of Keir Starmer, at least until Monday morning, not to defend Boris Johnson. And in that sense, um, it is, alas, not altogether surprising that he said something that turned out not to be the case. Uh, but the point that you make is a fair and valid one in relation to the work that this committee has now initiated in relation to fixed links. I know that there has been some BBC coverage in Scotland in relation to Shetland's recent report, and indeed that you've travelled to the Faroe Islands and observed, um, the real.
Access that has been achieved in relation to the Faroe Islands. And it bears on an earlier discussion in relation to space, not least given the potential benefits for Saxavord. If we were to see fixed links taking place in Shetland. As I understand it, the most recent report of Shetland Islands Council suggests three particular funding routes, one of which is capital grant funding, typically from the Scottish or the UK government. Secondly, borrowing either through the Public Works Loan Board or indeed through the National Wealth Fund.
And thirdly, private finance, which I understand was the model used in the Faroe Islands where, if you like, they were underpinned by um, some assurances from the Danish government, but they essentially raised private capital in loan finance that was then repaid actually more quickly than was expected. I hope even just the illustration of those different routes suggests that, with all due respect to my friends and colleagues in the Department for transport, the Secretary of State has even got the same name as me. Um, there is potential engagement by the UK government in relation to the National Wealth Fund in relation to the operation of the Public Works Loan Board or others.
And in that sense, I await with real interest the work of this Committee. It is an unusual position being asked about an inquiry that is not yet concluded, but I hope I've demonstrated the fact that I'm genuinely interested to see what the final report of the committee reflects, and I and I and I'm approaching it with an open mind. Thank you.
Access that has been achieved in relation to the Faroe Islands. And it bears on an earlier discussion in relation to space, not least given the potential benefits for Saxavord. If we were to see fixed links taking place in Shetland. As I understand it, the most recent report of Shetland Islands Council suggests three particular funding routes, one of which is capital grant funding, typically from the Scottish or the UK government. Secondly, borrowing either through the Public Works Loan Board or indeed through the National Wealth Fund.
And thirdly, private finance, which I understand was the model used in the Faroe Islands where, if you like, they were underpinned by um, some assurances from the Danish government, but they essentially raised private capital in loan finance that was then repaid actually more quickly than was expected. I hope even just the illustration of those different routes suggests that, with all due respect to my friends and colleagues in the Department for transport, the Secretary of State has even got the same name as me. Um, there is potential engagement by the UK government in relation to the National Wealth Fund in relation to the operation of the Public Works Loan Board or others.
And in that sense, I await with real interest the work of this Committee. It is an unusual position being asked about an inquiry that is not yet concluded, but I hope I've demonstrated the fact that I'm genuinely interested to see what the final report of the committee reflects, and I and I and I'm approaching it with an open mind. Thank you.
16:21
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
My next question. Um, so MG Alba, um, and Gaelic broadcasting, um, they say there's a time of great jeopardy due to, to underfunding. And we know there's basically a difference of about £100 million between Welsh language broadcasting and Scottish Gaelic broadcasting. Um, and we are doing a short inquiry onto this and we are wondering what the Westminster government opinion is on whether Gaelic language funding could be partially funded by the Westminster government.
16:22
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So, um I'll allow Kirsty to lead on this. I would simply observe in terms of the apparent like for like comparison, obviously we're in a position where we've got about 500,000 Welsh speakers in Wales. We've got about 70,000 native. Gaelic speakers in Scotland. And there has traditionally been a different funding model. But given the interest of this committee, given the work that is being undertaken across government in relation to charter renewal, um, I will let Kirsty speak. She's recently been to the Alba headquarters in Stornoway, much to my jealousy.
16:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So I'm so pleased that the committee is doing this inquiry. And I had the chance to go back through some of the witness um interview. Inventions you'd had and I was really struck by one that said the point about broadcasting in our national life is you should be able to see and hear yourself reflected. And so I think we, we shouldn't, um, you shouldn't be left in any doubt about our enthusiasm for that being the case for Gaelic speakers across Scotland and indeed beyond Scotland.
The Secretary of State has made reference to the fact that the Welsh situation is different. It's for over four decades, had a different funding settlement, MG Alba, of course, as you know, gets the majority of its funding from the Scottish Government. But in terms of the UK government's and indeed the Westminster level, in terms of our involvement in that, it is part of BBC Royal Charter that minority languages get there. Um are promoted and protected as part of BBC services, and Scottish Gaelic is named explicitly as one of the ones where there should be um, there should be protection.
But in reference to what the Secretary of State has said in terms of scale, MG Alba receives £421 per individual Gaelic speaker, an S or C. I know when we're talking at an absolute level, things feel unweighted. But when you look at it at an individual level. MG Alba gets £421 per individual Gaelic speaker, whereas S4 si receives just £260 per individual Welsh speaker. So we are talking about a different kind of magnitude per person. But the settlement for S4 has been different for some time and this really is primarily a Scottish Government responsibility when it comes to MG Alba itself.
BBC Alba is obviously somewhat different and as I say, that's part of the ongoing discussion about the Royal Charter.
The Secretary of State has made reference to the fact that the Welsh situation is different. It's for over four decades, had a different funding settlement, MG Alba, of course, as you know, gets the majority of its funding from the Scottish Government. But in terms of the UK government's and indeed the Westminster level, in terms of our involvement in that, it is part of BBC Royal Charter that minority languages get there. Um are promoted and protected as part of BBC services, and Scottish Gaelic is named explicitly as one of the ones where there should be um, there should be protection.
But in reference to what the Secretary of State has said in terms of scale, MG Alba receives £421 per individual Gaelic speaker, an S or C. I know when we're talking at an absolute level, things feel unweighted. But when you look at it at an individual level. MG Alba gets £421 per individual Gaelic speaker, whereas S4 si receives just £260 per individual Welsh speaker. So we are talking about a different kind of magnitude per person. But the settlement for S4 has been different for some time and this really is primarily a Scottish Government responsibility when it comes to MG Alba itself.
BBC Alba is obviously somewhat different and as I say, that's part of the ongoing discussion about the Royal Charter.
16:24
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
We've settled from 5 million with that. Um. Just a quick one. Um, this report, the headline is Remote Scotland's Spiralling towards Unviability and it's been put forward with the with the help of the assistance of the chief executives of all the major bodies in Scotland, which which is relevant. Um and the new Highlands and Islands Appg and this committee and everybody else will be fully informed of it. And it's all data based. I would very much appreciate a meeting with a cross-party meeting with the Scottish Office.
Um um in September on this. It's a very concerning issue across about the unviability if that would be.
Um um in September on this. It's a very concerning issue across about the unviability if that would be.
16:25
16:25
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:27
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:29
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
It's not Scotland office funding. It's um it's through other government departments directly. It's about the the direct funding. I mean there are different policy decisions are made by ministers about the appropriate way for money to be, uh, distributed. Um, there are some areas where money would be included in the block grant. And there are some areas where there is a choice about whether that funding is directly directed directly to the delivery partner or, um, would be, monetised and um, passed over to the Scottish Government for them to make choices.
16:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sorry, Christine, that was, that was my fault because we also have um, mean estimates for the department itself. So apologies, I shouldn't have directed that to you. That was entirely my fault. Um, I mean, the UK government has a places an enormous premium on growth and we will continue to want to make investments directly in Scotland that drive growth that is strategic for the country as a whole.
16:30
16:30
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So I think as I mentioned earlier, I would describe the first period of this government as being around. Um we had a number of manifesto commitments. We obviously had a mission around growth. The first, the first year or so of this government, I would characterise as really focusing on bidding in the policies and the changes we wanted to make on what we believe drive local growth. We set up four different local growth funds to try and drive that. We've created the industrial strategy.
We've done the small business strategy. We've done a number of policy development. There have been a number of policies in the development phase to try and set the foundations for growth. I think we know, and I made this undertaking, um, in public when I was at the Prosper conference, and I'm very pleased to repeat it here. I think we now need to move into very intensive, what I would characterise as more workshopping phase with the businesses, organisations that we think will drive regionalised growth.
So we have made bets historically, whether it's on freeports or investment zones, but we actually now need to drill down with big local employers. As with the the skills system in each of Scotland's regions to say, how are those bets working for you?Are there UK government investments and interventions which you consider duplicative?Are there places where things are falling through the gap?And crucially, and again, I've said this in public many times, what Scottish stakeholders want to see from us when they are making investments is that there has been an intelligent conversation between UK government, Scottish Government and local government as it pertains to a place to make sure that the investments are mutually reinforcing and that policies are not pulling in different directions.
So I hope you will see from the Scotland Office and indeed from the rest of UK government in coming months, a much more kind of granular workshopping approach, where we work with partners to really identify where their gaps and where their duplications.
We've done the small business strategy. We've done a number of policy development. There have been a number of policies in the development phase to try and set the foundations for growth. I think we know, and I made this undertaking, um, in public when I was at the Prosper conference, and I'm very pleased to repeat it here. I think we now need to move into very intensive, what I would characterise as more workshopping phase with the businesses, organisations that we think will drive regionalised growth.
So we have made bets historically, whether it's on freeports or investment zones, but we actually now need to drill down with big local employers. As with the the skills system in each of Scotland's regions to say, how are those bets working for you?Are there UK government investments and interventions which you consider duplicative?Are there places where things are falling through the gap?And crucially, and again, I've said this in public many times, what Scottish stakeholders want to see from us when they are making investments is that there has been an intelligent conversation between UK government, Scottish Government and local government as it pertains to a place to make sure that the investments are mutually reinforcing and that policies are not pulling in different directions.
So I hope you will see from the Scotland Office and indeed from the rest of UK government in coming months, a much more kind of granular workshopping approach, where we work with partners to really identify where their gaps and where their duplications.
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
Speaker 16
-
Speaker 16
A few months ago now um there was a a proposal from Ming Yang. The Chinese wind turbine manufacturer to invest 1.5 billion in Ardersier and employ 1500 people. And this was turned down by the Westminster government. No, no light really has been shed on that. Can you can you shed some?It's obviously quite a economic blow to the Highlands.
16:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
So the the statement that the government made at the time in which I will happily repeat, is considerations around our national security will always come first. And those considerations were weighed in the round with what is undoubtedly an investment opportunity for Scotland, which would have brought benefits. But the. In the decision in the round always has to be taken with one eye on national security, and that is the basis on which the decision was made.
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We we are still um very, very invested both financially and in terms of momentum in the benefits to come from city regions. We are deep in delivery phase in almost all of them. There were some that have only been signed since this government came in, but the ones that are at maturity, we are um we work very, very closely with our local authority partners and with the Scottish Government to really get the benefit from, um, from the city deals. And I think actually it was a meeting of this committee where I first undertook to do this, and I'll repeat it for you, Douglas, because you weren't here at the time.
I am incredibly keen that Westminster parliamentarians in each growth deal are able, on a cross-party basis, to reflect back to UK government what is working and not in each of the city deals. So we will do a number of those sessions after the summer recess that you'll be invited to, to make sure that your constituency experience is informing what we're doing.
I am incredibly keen that Westminster parliamentarians in each growth deal are able, on a cross-party basis, to reflect back to UK government what is working and not in each of the city deals. So we will do a number of those sessions after the summer recess that you'll be invited to, to make sure that your constituency experience is informing what we're doing.
16:34
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
It's just I'm thinking of the Aberdeen City region deal is now. Well, it was over ten years ago, so it's now most of it's actually came to an end. And we have places like the Oil and Gas Technology Centre. We've really had to shrink down because that funding has come to an end, and there seems to be nothing coming to to replace it. So will there be new city region deals?I understand there's still funding to come through for ones that were already in place, but is there going to be new City Region deals in the future, and can local authorities still put bids together to try and get that funding?
16:35
16:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Growth instruments that we have beyond the kind of investment zones and freeports and so on that we've spoken about. But in terms of the new ones that we've initiated, there's a pride in Place programme, which of course Aberdeen is a beneficiary. There's a pride in place impact fund, there is the local growth Fund, and there is the Mission Growth Fund. Um, very happy to talk to you on a constituency basis about what's most pressing for Aberdeen. The local growth fund is designed in particular to, um, on a regional basis, focus on areas of more strategic prosperity.
So I would describe that as the, in a sense, the purest growth fund. Others are slightly more to do with place based regeneration, but the local growth fund is the purest growth fund. But the lots of the Aberdeen projects are still in flight, as you say, but we should absolutely follow up and make sure that you are brought up to speed with the representations I've had from Aberdeen colleagues about what was working and not.
So I would describe that as the, in a sense, the purest growth fund. Others are slightly more to do with place based regeneration, but the local growth fund is the purest growth fund. But the lots of the Aberdeen projects are still in flight, as you say, but we should absolutely follow up and make sure that you are brought up to speed with the representations I've had from Aberdeen colleagues about what was working and not.
16:36
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My last question is about, um, social social security spending in Scotland. Now the Scottish Government spends more on social social security than they receive from their um their funding from the UK government. And that's, you know, that's due to their policy choices. Um do you have concerns about how affordable that's going to be going forward for the Scottish Government.
16:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I mean the Scottish Government's management of the Scottish public finances has been a something I've commented on a lot, as you might imagine, in the run up to the recent election. But in my capacity as a UK government minister, it's not for me to say how they should manage their public finances. It's for the Scottish electorate to hold them accountable for that. But I don't think any reasonable observer would say that the Scottish Government has managed their public finances particularly well.
16:37
16:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
As the Scottish Government's spending decisions in areas that are devolved to them are for them to account for. But we certainly, as Labour politicians, spoke a lot in the run up to the Scottish election about the Scottish Government's management of the of their public finances has, in my view, um, not been very responsible and their ability to waste money. Legendary. And the the benefit that the Scottish taxpayer gets for the spending, not as we would. Want it to be.
16:38
16:38
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. That's actually concluded our questions this afternoon. But if I could just very briefly refer back to something we talked about earlier with the Secretary of State. And I'm not looking for an answer today, but if perhaps there could be some correspondence following the meeting, it would be helpful. It was to do with the point about the internal markets and the SNP policy concerning food, and we understand that the Minister of State at the Department for Business and Trade, Chris Bryant, had said that it is unlikely that that policy would interact with the UK Internal Market Act.
So that was really the point of the question around that. It would be helpful if there could be some clarity around that and where we go from here. If that policy were to be enacted eventually. Yeah. Thank you very much, miss. Neil. Baroness Smith, miss Martin, thank you very much for your time this afternoon. And please pass on our thanks again to the Secretary of State. We're very grateful to you.
It's been a long session. It's a hot afternoon, but I think it's been very useful. So thank you all very much. Order.
So that was really the point of the question around that. It would be helpful if there could be some clarity around that and where we go from here. If that policy were to be enacted eventually. Yeah. Thank you very much, miss. Neil. Baroness Smith, miss Martin, thank you very much for your time this afternoon. And please pass on our thanks again to the Secretary of State. We're very grateful to you.
It's been a long session. It's a hot afternoon, but I think it's been very useful. So thank you all very much. Order.