Thank you for the warmth of your welcome to me and colleagues, Chair. My understanding is that under the 2022 review of intergovernmental relations, it was anticipated that the council would meet at least twice yearly. I will contextualise the two meetings that have happened. Under the review in 2022, there was agreement for three tiers of intergovernmental contact in a more structured way. The observation was that some of the original architecture had not yielded the frequency and structure of contacts that had been anticipated. Tier 1 engagement at the portfolio level is done through the interministerial groups. The middle tier, which is used to discuss cross-cutting issues that cannot be discussed exclusively at portfolio level, is run through interministerial standing committees. The top tier is led by the Prime Minister in contact with First Ministers and others. There have been 16 interministerial groups since July 2024, and six interministerial standing committees since the general election—I attended one last month. The Prime Minister and heads of the devolved Governments have met twice, as you say, in line with the annual commitment in the 2022 review. The Prime Minister most recently called the First Minister after the Scottish Parliament elections on 12 May.

That is the top tier that brings together the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland. I think it is reasonable to observe, however, that that is the scaffolding of a series of contacts that is pretty much continual. The vast majority of engagement happens outside these formal structures. In preparation for the Committee, I asked for the numbers to be prepared. Between July 2024 and September 2025, 535 out of 571 meetings between the UK Government and the devolved Governments took place outside the formal IGR meetings. The IGR meetings are both a safeguard and some scaffolding, but there is a huge amount of regular contact between the devolved Governments and the UK Government, with many taking place outside that formal structure.

The review was undertaken under our predecessors in 2022, but having come into this position after many years out of Government and away from politics, I think the regular cadence of formal meetings is helpful and beneficial to the relationship. We have adhered to those requirements, but at the same time it is right to observe that the bulk and most frequent set of meetings happen outside the formal structure. I see it not as either/or, but as and. The Government were absolutely sincere in saying that we wanted to move away from the performative disagreements and recourse to the courts, which we had seen sometimes in the past, and instead to work on the basis of mutual respect and understanding of the devolution settlement. The formal structures of intergovernmental relations assist us in that endeavour; they are necessary but insufficient. There is a frequency of contact outside of that that I think serves us well.

I think it is probably for others to make that judgment but certainly my experience, after many years away, is that there is a structured and frequent nature of contact between Ministers that was not as present in the earlier years of devolution. The political dynamics were pretty different after July 2024. As a Labour Member of Parliament, if you have 37 colleagues representing a range of constituencies across Scotland, the character and nature of the interaction will be different from how it sometimes was between our predecessors and the Scottish Government.

If I could add, Chair, building on Kirsty’s point about the matters of substance, the middle east is clearly much in our thoughts today, given the news overnight. I know that the Foreign Secretary is in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as we speak. We have established a particular architecture of meetings to try to ensure that the UK in its totality is appropriately prepared for all kinds of contingencies in the middle east. We have established the Middle East Response Committee, which necessarily and appropriately involves the Scottish Government because if you are talking, for example, about the availability of jet fuel or diesel in different scenarios for the Strait of Hormuz, that bears very directly on the capacity of the blue light services to be able to operate connectivity to the Scottish islands. Building on Kirsty’s point, the Middle East Response Committee is an example of something far outside the established protocols; it is a bespoke solution to a very immediate problem. It still continues to meet, incidentally, but whether it is Kirsty or other Ministers from across Government meeting with their counterparts, that is a very clear example of the pragmatic problem-solving approach that we are taking.

That is the most immediate bespoke example that comes to mind. It is partly an initiative of incoming Cabinet Secretary Antonia Romeo, who was keen to establish a cross-Whitehall capability. It has only been in position for a matter of weeks and months but it has weighed quite heavily on all of us as Ministers who are directly involved because we have a responsibility for security of supply and adequate public information at the appropriate stages. What started as a foreign policy crisis very rapidly became a domestic political challenge and a domestic policy challenge, and that is where very rightly and appropriately we have engaged with colleagues in the Scottish Government.

Honestly, I see my responsibility as both. Clearly in Whitehall you want to be Scotland’s voice at the Cabinet table, in Cabinet sub-committees and in the various mechanisms by which we formulate policy and agree legislation. At the same time, you are Scotland’s voice more broadly and speaking on behalf of Scotland in the areas of reserved competence. I don’t see it as a binary either/or. On the point you make about timeliness of information, the most recent example where we have a very fair and reasonable point was on emergency legislation on steel, where we had to move at great speed. It is a matter of record that we were grateful for the understanding and support of the Scottish Government in ensuring that that legislation was able to pass, but that was the exception rather than the rule. I am sure that in the course of our discussions today we will have the opportunity to talk about the Sewel convention, but in practical terms—this bears on the Chair’s observation about the reset—it is a matter of quiet pride to me that there has not been a single example since July 2024 where we have legislated without consent on Scotland. I think that speaks to the strength of our ties and the effective working. Of course there will be instances when the legislative programme of the UK Government has to be supplemented by emergency legislation. That is when you ask for forbearance and the benefit of the doubt from your partners and colleagues in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the North Irish Government, but as a matter of course, given how heavy the first legislative session proved to be, I don’t think 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 Governments.

I don’t want to sound immodest. It is probably for others to make that judgment, and people are never backward in coming forward with their views of any politician. As I look back over the last eight or nine months, the fact that we secured more than £100 million for the ethylene plant at Grangemouth was a matter of choice and change. 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 a sustainable future for the workers in circumstances where there was a significant degree of peril otherwise. Of course I contribute directly to the work that the Government do more generally on Scotland’s behalf. I am sure we will have the chance to talk about whisky. I think for the first time any Secretary of State has done so, I accompanied the Prime Minister when we met Prime Minister Modi in India in the autumn. That was a way of confirming and building momentum behind a truly landmark deal in the Indian whisky market. It is the largest market by volume anywhere in the world for Scotch whisky, but we have been in a position where tariffs of 140% have been a very significant inhibitor for exports. I think that being in a position to drive that forward with the Prime Minister was an achievement. I am very happy to share more.

First, I extend my congratulations to you on your recent by-election victory and welcome you to this Committee. I have deep bonds of family friendship, kith and kin, in the Scottish Parliament over the last 25 years. 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, my best man, godparents to my children, the importance of effective joint working between Westminster and Holyrood. When I was first elected to Parliament in November 1997, it was a matter of great pride to me to be able to legislate in the Scotland Act in 1998. I was part of the first generation here in Westminster for whom devolution was a given, not an aspiration, and an opportunity, not a threat. 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. Of course the observation is a fair one, there are circumstances where more time could have been provided and circumstances could be different. I can’t gainsay 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 have a checklist. If you are in DEFRA or DESNZ 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. Again, being a human institution, I am sure there is always scope for improvement but I can assure you that through my role and the role of the Advocate General in the Public Bill Committee and others, we are absolutely willing to speak up and make sure that if we have concerns about not just the sharing of information but the timeliness of engaging appropriately with the devolved Governments, we have absolutely no hesitation in doing so.

I was trying to think of a polite way of saying Scotch whisky does not just employ a lot of people in Dunbarton; my recollection of my childhood is that there were quite a lot of geese employed by the whisky industry as well, given the bonds there and the honking geese we heard as we drove past for many years. You are absolutely right to recognise that Scotch whisky is a cornerstone of the Scottish economy. It is a huge global success in exports. The industry supports about 41,000 jobs in Scotland and that was very much in my mind when I was Trade Policy Minister, which I was appointed to in July 2024; I became Scottish Secretary last year. To try to do justice to your question, it is probably appropriate to start with the global context in which we have tried to advocate and make the case for Scotch whisky. When we came into office in July 2024—in a previous life I had been trade investment and foreign affairs Minister when we were part of the European Union—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, sailing the seas of a liberalising world. 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. That, of course, was immediately prior to President Trump’s re-election in November that year. It was a more divided, more protectionist, more regionalised world. I was charged with responsibility when coming into office of drafting the new Government’s trade strategy, so we had to try to devise a trade strategy appropriate to those very different circumstances. Given the centrality of whisky, that was much in my mind. There were a few basic compass points to navigate. First, 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 as much to Europe as we do to the United States, our largest single country market. Similarly, we had historically, since Brexit, underperformed on goods, in which whisky is a key part, and relatively overperformed on services exports. One of the key challenges was how to get tariffs down on exports, principally whisky and others. If you look at the numbers—I looked them up before this meeting—the volume of global imports affected by tariffs went up between 2024 and 2025 to £2.64 trillion. 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’s run through some of the key questions that you asked. On India, as I say, as the Secretary of State for Scotland in 2006 I had forlornly and unsuccessfully advocated for cuts in what were sky-high tariff rates in India. With the support and a great deal of effort on the part of the Prime Minister personally, we secured an historic deal. That deal was confirmed and blessed in 2025 when I travelled to support the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi. To give you a sense of scale of what that deal means for Scotch whisky, it is India’s largest trading deal. It increases UK GDP by about £4.8 billion annually. India is the largest whisky market by volume. The tariff rates are coming down from 150% to 75% immediately, literally this week, and over the next 10 years we will see further reductions to 40%. If that was the only trading achievement of this Government, I would be genuinely very proud, albeit not satisfied. On China, again the Prime Minister deserves a lot of credit. This deal was bilaterally negotiated with Xi Jinping and the Prime Minister during a visit that the Prime Minister made to China 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 a 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. China is 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. Most recently with the United States, on 30 April it was announced as part of the UK-US economic partnership deal, which had been previously negotiated, that the 10% tariff imposed on Scotch whisky would be coming down to zero. We are on schedule. I spoke to Varun Chandra, the Prime Minister’s business adviser, this morning. He is on the ground in Washington DC, and he assured me that we are on track and on timetable for those tariffs to be reduced at the end of the month on schedule. Given that the US is the largest market by value, that alone is a very significant achievement. I think that gives you a flavour of the constancy of our focus on whisky from July 2024 through my time as Secretary of State for Scotland.

I will set the context for what was achieved on 30 April, because I think that is worth setting out for the record, and then I will come to both of your supplementary points. Since February 2025, the UK Government were working to secure what turned out to be the economic prosperity deal with the United States. February 2025 was significant because that was the date of the initial meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Starmer in the Oval Office. 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. If you look, for example, at the very torrid time that President Zelensky or the South African President had when visiting the Oval Office, that was not a given and it was a big win for the United Kingdom. We tried very hard to get an economic prosperity deal done before what the US President called liberation day—world tariff day, but 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 a range of sectors of the UK economy—aeronautics, pharmaceuticals and automobiles. We are 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. Whisky is part of a broader story of the sector-by-sector approach we are taking. Whisky has always been a central element of our negotiations, not least because of its economic significance that you described. I pay tribute today to the work of the British trade negotiators, who I worked with very closely as Trade Policy Minister and as Secretary of State for Scotland, and to Varun Chandra, the Prime Minister’s business adviser, who happens to be on the ground today in Washington. Ultimately we worked very closely with the Palace on the whisky deal. I don’t want to share too much information on that, but it is right and reasonable to pay very generous tribute to the work that His Majesty the King did. 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 present in Washington DC. The implicit division of responsibility, if one is allowed a division of responsibility with the monarch, was that the King dealt directly with the President and our negotiators were on the ground, alongside the state visit, negotiating directly with the US Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce and the US Treasury. That proved to be a very powerful coming together for the announcement that was made on 30 April. As I said, I spoke to the Prime Minister’s business adviser today. He was at pains to emphasise that we are on track and on schedule for the announcement happening. Those are the facts about the role of the British negotiators. The economic prosperity deal always anticipated that we would do a sequence of deals, sector by sector. Whisky takes its place alongside automotive, aeronautics and pharmaceuticals. More broadly on 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 as such. That is explicitly stated in the Scotland Act—schedule 5, if my recollection is correct, which reserves foreign policy including trade negotiations. In contrast, trade promotion is a shared competence and it is perfectly appropriate, indeed welcome, for the First Minister to promote Scotch whisky globally. We engage in that as the UK Government and we welcome and encourage efforts made by the Scottish Government in that regard. It is a matter of record that the First Minister was in Washington the previous July, if I recollect the right dates. When he returned he said that, “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.” It is welcome that he does whatever he can to help, but I hope I have been able to illustrate to the Committee that whisky was very firmly on the UK Government’s agenda. We had concluded the landmark deal with India and we were already talking to the Americans and talking about whisky before, during and following that particular visit. On the frequency of contact, and discussions, 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 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. My door is open, not just to the First Minister but to any member of the Scottish Government, because I think there is great benefit to Scotland in us working effectively and collaboratively together on a whole range of policies. Notwithstanding the fact that we have not had a direct bilateral meeting, in the regular course of events I have had a range of different briefings and meetings with the First Minister. As it happened, in my first week in the job I had a shared briefing with him. I have had, as I recollect, five briefings with him since then, including deputy national security adviser briefings and others. I have known John for a very long time. He graduated from Edinburgh shortly before I arrived. I think he was working for the Coalfields Communities Campaign at that point. The offer stands. We are very keen to work collaboratively and effectively. There was one phone call between the Prime Minister and the First Minister after the Scottish elections when the Prime Minister extended his congratulations. I think it is fair to acknowledge that there was a divergence of views between the Scottish Government and the UK Government about the content of that phone call. It was briefed out immediately after the call that the Prime Minister had agreed to discuss independence and the referendum following the phone call between the First Minister and the Prime Minister. I was not on the phone call but I have seen the official minute of the call and the Prime Minister was very clear that we were adhering to our manifesto that we set out ahead of July 2024 in which we stated that as a Government we not only oppose independence but also oppose a further independence referendum. Notwithstanding that, there is an agreement that there would have been a meeting with the outgoing Prime Minister. I fully anticipate that when Andy becomes the Prime Minister on Monday, there will be further and appropriate contact with all the First Ministers. I certainly hope that is the start of an effective working relationship.

A sense of proportion is probably necessary. If you look at the proportion of Scotch whisky that is subject to duty from the Treasury—this is a long-standing conversation with the Scotch Whisky Association—you see that the vast bulk of Scotch whisky is produced for export, so it is not an incidental matter to have struck landmark deals with the largest market by volume and the largest market by value. Of course we have the responsibility to work collaboratively with other Departments across Whitehall. I think it was a previous Prime Minister who said, “To decide is to divide.” Part of the challenge in Government is on occasion to say no as well as yes. I am not going to suggest that in every instance every request of the Scotch Whisky Association can be accommodated. If you look at the frequency of contact between the Scotch Whisky Association and the Scotland Office, the contact the Scotch Whisky Association had with me when I was Trade Policy Minister and continues to have with DBT, the discussions with DEFRA on concerns about agriculture, and more broadly in the discussions that take place across Government, I have a fairly high degree of confidence not only that the voice of Scotch whisky is a powerful one outside Government, but that it is a voice that is listened to and engaged with in a respectful and constructive manner on a whole series of issues within Government.

Can you remember the timing of the British industrial competitiveness scheme?

I will have to check and come back to you.

I am a proud product of a Scottish state school and Edinburgh University and I continue to believe in the principles of the Scottish enlightenment. Facts are important in this debate and it is right to recognise that the First Minister received that message from the President. Of course, the President says a great number of things and manages a whole series of relationships, as befits any politician. It is not for me to account for the actions of a foreign Government. I am very happy to account for the actions of the UK Government. I hope that, on the facts I have set out in as dispassionate a way as I can, there is an appreciation that the UK Government was engaged from February 2025, in the initial meeting between the President and the Prime Minister, all the way through to the critical state visit that took place in April this year. While I am perfectly willing to recognise that 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 last year. It is 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, having been working extraordinarily hard not just on aeronautics, pharmaceuticals or automobiles but also on whisky.

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.” I hope I have been able to adduce to the Committee today that whisky was on the agenda. Whisky was on the agenda with India, the United States and China. One of my observations about trade, you say it is about relationships—and you are right to recognise that relationships matter in trade negotiations—but trade negotiations are also a matter of psychology and arithmetic. On psychology, it is about how much do you want the deal and, truthfully, President Trump is a formidable deal maker. He does not give gifts; he does deals. The counterparty to that deal appropriately, as you have recognised, was the Department for Business and Trade, the Prime Minister, with the First Minister no doubt contributing his views as well directly to the President as you described. The arithmetic matters because scale matters in trade negotiations. If you are a population of 75 million or 80 million people and you are seeking to extend trade interests like Scotch whisky opening up international markets, you are in a fundamentally stronger position if you are representing 70 million people than if, with great respect to my fellow Scots, you are representing 5 million or 5.5 million people. That is one of the reasons, frankly, I was so disappointed by the choice that we made on Brexit, because if you have 500 million consumers behind you in trade negotiations, it is little wonder that you are an international superpower in trade negotiations. I think that this a good example of where, to the clear and transparent benefit of the Scotch whisky industry, we have leveraged the scale and strength of the United Kingdom in the service of an industry that has a disproportionate influence and benefit to Scotland.

First, there is a philosophical difference between us, notwithstanding our long-standing knowledge of and, I hope, respect for each other. Philosophically I believe in devolution as a two-Parliament solution to Scotland’s governance. I recognise rightly and reasonably that the First Minister takes a different view, because he constantly seeks to argue, in his nationalist philosophy, the belief that the best governance for Scotland is a single-Parliament solution, a sovereign state for Scotland. Respectfully, I disagree with that, but there is a complete coherence and consistency in my mind between believing in principle and in practice in a two-Parliament solution and maintaining strong effective working relationships between the two Governments of the United Kingdom and Scotland. It is inherent in the devolution architecture that we need that relationship of respect, but also it should be a relationship that recognises the boundaries of each respective area of competence and responsibility. I hear what you say about the First Minister’s desire to deal directly with the Prime Minister and I am respectful of that. On occasion we 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 stewardship of the devolution architecture and also advancing Scotland’s interests, have with the First Minister and other Ministers. I have now found the numbers. I have had six briefings with the First Minister, three DNSA briefings, two Middle East briefings. I had one briefing on the defence investment plan last month, but that is without prejudice, two bilateral meetings with the Deputy First Minister, three interministerial standing committees, one briefing with Shona Robison on the budget, and two Mossmorran taskforce meetings where Scottish Government Ministers were present. 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 will continue to do so.

Going forward carries a lot of weight in that sentence, given what we are looking at in the coming days. My sense is there is a huge opportunity for us with devolution. I have carried torches on Carlton Hill, I have stood in the rain in The Meadows, I have rallied in George Square arguing for and advocating for a Scottish Parliament. I am a very long-standing advocate of devolution, but my hope was always that devolution would not stop at Holyrood and that we would see not only devolution to Scotland, but devolution within Scotland. Given the incoming Prime Minister’s experience as an advocate for and a practitioner of devolution, I think there will be real opportunities to work constructively and collaboratively with the Scottish Government, looking at how we can achieve, frankly, a change after a quarter of a century of devolution. I gave a speech to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the autumn where I called out what I described as the grinding centralisation that we had seen, whether for the fire service, the police service, and 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. I welcomed actively the fact that the First Minister, after my speech—I am not for a minute claiming that he was convinced by my speech—sequentially made the case for regional economic partnerships being put on a statutory footing in Scotland. Kirsty can speak to the weight and volume of our work on the regional economy in Scotland. 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 regions’ economic growth and prosperity, some of that thinking will cross the border and inform and shape Scottish Government thinking ahead of their programme of government.

Not so far, but hope springs eternal. To be fair to them, I think they will be looking to the incoming Prime Minister to set out his thinking on a whole range of matters as it affects Scotland. There have already been some public statements from Stephen Gethins, as I recollect, but they focused on the UK internal market rather than devolution within Scotland. It feels to me that we have a huge opportunity in Scotland in recognising the centrality of city regions as drivers of modern prosperity. I really ask myself the question why we have not seized that mantle before over recent years in devolution. Philosophically, nationalism preferences the relationship between the individual and the nation and seeks to assert that a nation should, in Scotland’s case, be a nation state. The primary identity has to be between the citizen and the Scottish national identity. I have 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 European. That partly explains the aversion that we have witnessed in recent years to fully recognise the role of city regions and regional identities within Scotland in being not just sources of immense pride but also drivers of modern prosperity. In Manchester, for example, where Andy has been the mayor in recent years, the example that comes to mind is planning. No Government start out saying, “We 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 today takes 18 weeks, whereas it takes 58 weeks in Glasgow. If you are an ambitious business, looking to make an investment or to develop campuses or a premise, Manchester starts with a significant advantage in the speed and ease with which planning requirements can be achieved. 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 the UK Government have committed—has been the hollowing out of the planning capability in a lot of local authorities. I understand that in some cases that has happened even to the point where they use consultants rather than in-house planning specialists. That has a direct knock-on effect on economic prosperity and economic growth. I hope that by the power of example and the power of persuasion the UK Government will be able to engage in a constructive dialogue about the role of regional economic strength in Scotland. As I say, I took some heart from the First Minister’s statement about regional economic partnerships going on to a statutory footing. I don’t know what will be in the programme for government of the Scottish Government in September but I hope that we will see a fuller embrace of regional economic levers in growth than has perhaps been the case in the past.

That was the request to which the answer was given and we were mindful of the position that had been taken by the Scottish Parliament. It might be helpful to draw the contrast between the years immediately preceding 2014, where of course we had the independence referendum, and where we find ourselves 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 been language in the 2010 manifesto of the governing party in Westminster at the time 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. It is 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.” From a position just weeks before the recent Scottish Parliament elections where the bar was an SNP majority, the position clearly shifted to one where they were saying, “If we have other pro-independence parties within Scotland, that constitutes a mandate.” Of course 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 in July 2024, 37 of us as Scottish Labour MPs, not only opposing independence but opposing an independence referendum. The consensus that existed after 2011 does not exist and so the position of the Government that was set out in response to the request for the section 30 order was unchanged.

The SNP failed by its own test.

For someone to tell me to be shorter, given my height, is quite something, but I will take the direction of the Chair.

Thanks very much. It is nice to see you too.

As Scots, we made our choice in 2014. There was the consensus that I described and no such consensus exists today, but more broadly, if you look at some of the latest public service figures in Scotland at the moment, now is a time to focus on delivery rather than division, whether it is the A&E numbers that came out in May—the worst ever—or more broadly the challenges that we face in state education in Scotland. As I say, I am a proud product of a Scottish comprehensive. We used to be the envy of the world and used to feel a degree of confidence in our relative performance compared with colleagues and friends and neighbours in England. I think there is now a genuine need for the focus to be on delivery rather than division. If I were to be appointed to this office next week by the incoming Prime Minister, the first thing I would do is probably listen rather than lecture. Let’s wait and see how events unfold, but the position of the Government historically has been very clear on energy policy and other matters that we benefit from the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom. While often on energy policy the claim is made by Stephen Gethins and others—I think Stephen had to correct his maiden speech in the Holyrood Parliament shortly after he gave it—and notwithstanding my admiration for Stephen, I think it is right to recognise the contribution that UK taxpayers across the whole of these islands make to ensure that we see the renewables developments that all of us no doubt will welcome when it comes to Scottish fuels.

Thank you for that question. That is a truly terrifying start to a question. If you are referring to the memorandum of understanding in relation to the Sewel convention, work on that is ongoing. I would start by saying—I think I made this point earlier—in practice, we have already strengthened the Sewel Convention by dint of the fact that we have not legislated without consent in relation to Scotland on a single occasion since we came into office. That is not insignificant, given the range of legislation that we have passed, notwithstanding what we have just discussed. The manifesto that I and you were elected on committed us to strengthening the Sewel convention. That necessarily is work that involves not just the UK Government, although ultimately we hold the pen, but the devolved Government as well. In that sense, I think it is more important that we get this right than we do this in too much haste. That is not an argument for delay, incidentally; it is an acknowledgment 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. The interministerial standing committee, one of the committees I was talking about in relation to the Chair’s questions earlier, has specifically discussed the Sewel convention on three occasions in the past 18 months. There has been very significant engagement at official level, as well between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. We want to take as collaborative and constructive an approach as we can. In that sense, I can assure you the work is under way.

I do not have a good enough answer for you on that, so let me write to you.

I am not going to breach the convention that Catherine has just spoken of. I would simply make a few observations that I hope are of help to you. The UK Internal Market Act does not prevent the Scottish Government from introducing legislation. It is for the Scottish Government to design their policy and ensure that any legislation is within their competence as set out in the Scotland Act. The mutual recognition principle in the UK Act specifically does not concern the price of goods. It is not necessarily the case that the legislation to which you refer, which 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. It is for the Scottish Government to consider proposing an exclusion to the Act if they deem it appropriate. I 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 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 legislation. Even a cursory reading of the Scottish newspapers indicates that Scottish supermarkets, Scottish farmers and Scottish food producers may well have trenchant views in relation to any legislation that is brought forward. Ultimately, that is for them.

That is not what I said.

First of all, it is for previous Governments to account for what they did, but it is 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, for the record, I did not say what you momentarily suggested I said, which was that the UK Internal Market Act would not be relevant. Frankly, at this stage, we simply do not know. My observation was that it is for the Scottish Government to bring forward its legislation. As I say, if you read the Scottish newspapers, it is clear that some producers within Scotland have expressed very real concerns in relation to the operability of the Act. Notwithstanding the First Minister’s observations during the campaign and the suggestion that the approach the UK Government would take was inevitable, we have not yet taken an approach. 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 the other devolved Governments, expressly to try to avoid a situation where recourse to the courts is the first resort rather than the last step. In that sense, I would not want you to leave the Committee or this hearing with the perception that how the UK Internal Market Act was used by our predecessors is in any way a guide 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.

In terms of the numbers, as I recollect, eight out of the 30 frameworks have been fully implemented to date. Twenty are provisionally operational and are being used to agree policy and manage where different approaches are being taken by the devolved Governments, helping to deliver, we hope, a coherent regulatory picture across the UK internal market. In terms of how we get that number of eight upwards in the timeline for finalisation, with the devolved Governments’ agreement, we hope to finalise a further nine of the common frameworks this year and provisionally publish zootechnics 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. In the kindest possible sense, the ball is in their court; we are very keen and ready to move, but we are awaiting direction from the incoming Ministers.

In life, and in professional life, there are always paths not taken. As a conceptual question, could we have done it differently? I suppose that is a theoretical possibility. I stand by the judgments that we made, and let me try to explain why we reached those judgments. First, as Scots, we have huge equity and status in the effective operation of the UK internal market. If you look at where we trade most, where we export most, and from whom we import most, it is the home nations of the United Kingdom. Secondly, you do not need to look into a crystal ball; you can look at the history books. Look at the hit to trade that has been taken as a consequence of the judgment that was made in relation to Brexit, which was a clear example of new barriers going up in what had previously been an effective, functioning single market and common market. The philosophical question is how you strike the appropriate balance between regulatory divergence and the importance of a functioning internal market. We thought deeply and carefully about that, as well as speaking to a whole range of Scottish businesses and businesses that interact directly with Scotland when we were proposing the terms of the internal market. That internal trade between the four nations is worth about £129 billion annually. That was the basis on which we said we needed to find a way that allows the Scottish Government more flexibility to legislate within its areas of competence—we identified new areas for exclusion—while upholding the centrality and importance of that intra-home nation trade. Given I was responsible for the view, it is hardly “hold the front page”, but I think we got the balance right in that regard.

Forgive me, Harriet, I am just looking for the number. Yes, there were 27 of them in the King’s Speech that we expect to apply at least in part to Scotland. The Advocate General has 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—we make sure that Scotland’s voice is heard, whether in relation to policy or law. We believe that Scotland will benefit substantially from the programme that we set out in May 2026. As I say, 27 of those Bills in some way, either in part or wholly, apply to the Scottish jurisdiction.

Catherine has spoken eloquently of the convention in relation to legal advice shared between Law Officers and Ministers. 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 Andy, not least ahead of him becoming the Prime Minister next Monday. I can assure you it is a central issue of concern to us in terms of the transition under way in relation to the North Sea. It is a matter of record that I met with the oil majors, with OEUK and others, along with the Chancellor immediately prior to the Budget. I would observe that, notwithstanding the strong case that was made to us in relation to the EPL, that meeting took place just around the time of the Budget in circumstances where we had seen the American action being taken in relation to Iran. The news that greeted us overnight on to the further action in the Strait of Hormuz speaks to why the EPL was originally designed. Under our predecessors, under Rishi Sunak in 2022, the EPL was designed to address excess profits generated as a consequence of geopolitical actions.

The position of the Government in relation to licences is 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 Scottish producers and continue to make those representations. I am rather old-fashioned in relation to how to influence. 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 the Cabinet, which is a big part of the job, reading your own name or policy recommendations in the public print is not always, in my experience, the most effective way to effect change in any area of policy. 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 it is an issue that I am fully aware of in relation to the transition under way in the North Sea.

In the manifesto in 2024 on which I was elected, there were three or four proposals for reform in the Scottish Government, of which the role of the Lord Advocate was one, along with other changes that we recommended. As was set out by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box in 2025, our view has been, given the nature of the role—the fact the Lord Advocate sits in the Scottish Cabinet—it would be better for that to be initiated from Holyrood. In that sense, we continue to urge and want the Scottish Government to come forward with proposals. That is what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box. I know that a great deal of interest has been generated in this by recent court cases in Scotland. We would, not least in light of the recent 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 of the UK Government, notwithstanding the terms of the Scotland Act, because it bears on a range of issues that are within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government. If you want a clear, definitive view as to where we are, the words that the Prime Minister used at the Dispatch Box very accurately reflect the position we have taken, which is that we identified areas which, if the Scottish Government had shifted their political views and Scottish Labour had been elected in May, I would have hoped would be part of an incoming legislative agenda for a Scottish Labour First Minister. We look to the programme for government that the Scottish Government will bring forward in September, which affords a legislative opportunity for the Scottish Government to take action. On this one, I hope that they will reflect carefully on what we have witnessed in recent years.

Given all the difficulties the Scottish Government have faced in relation to the particular court case that I do not want to be drawn any further on, 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.

I have been deeply troubled by the culture of secrecy and general matters 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 sparing, careful and considered in any public comments that I have made, notwithstanding the questions that were asked by Mr Doogan. In that sense, I think it is to the credit of this Committee that you have also trodden with some care on what are sensitive but very important issues. Of course it is a matter for the Scottish Affairs Select Committee to determine what issues you investigate and what matters you look at, but from the public statements that have emerged, I know that there is consideration as to whether, if the Scottish parliamentary committee system does not step up to look at some of these matters, there is 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. Like others, I await with interest the judgment that this Committee makes on those matters.

I think spring is a very elastic concept when it comes to Whitehall on occasions, and spring can somehow be extended in circumstances where we are likely to see a new Prime Minister take office on Monday. I am deeply aware of both the valuable work that this Committee has done in exploring, understanding and advocating for the space sector in Scotland and the urgency of these matters being taken forward. In preparing for this hearing, not only did I take the chance to reacquaint myself with your findings and the Government’s response to your findings in the space inquiry, but I also checked in with my colleagues in DSIT as to the timings. My understanding is that, at least in the microclimate of DSIT, spring has now extended to the end of 2026. When I pushed officials today, or yesterday, I was told that the timing now under contemplation was the end of 2026. As I understand it, that is the latest deadline. It may well be, depending on what happens next week in terms of the Government’s approach to space, that it could come earlier than that, but the advice I received was the end of 2026.

I will talk to colleagues in DSIT 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 and the interaction with much of the work that we have been doing in the Ministry of Defence and everything else—got a single line back: wait for the space strategy. I am very happy to make the specific inquiry in relation to the £20 million.

I spoke at the time to Liz Lloyd, the relevant Minister, because it was a matter of concern, and it is always regrettable when a business moves into administration. My understanding is that Orbex is still in the process of administration. What became clear in that dialogue with the relevant Minister was that, as your own inquiry found, launch capability is an inherently risky business, no matter how much capital you have behind you. 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 cognisant of the risk of the sector involved. You need to be willing to take those risks; otherwise, you effectively deal yourself out of that game. Ultimately, as I understand it, the commercial circumstance 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. It is a matter of regret, but it is in the nature of the development of these space technologies that some companies are going to fail. You then face, as a Minister, an important choice as to whether, notwithstanding the fact that the company in which you have invested has relatively lost out to other competitors in a highly competitive sector, or does not have the private capital that you would wish to have seen come on board, you are going to continue to plough further money in when you do not see a commercially sustainable path forward for the business.

In the terms that I have described: it is a private sector business. We were willing to allocate significant levels of capital, fully aware that this was a sector in which not every company was going to succeed, but we wanted a horse in the race and were willing to back it with significant public resources. We cannot and should not assume the responsibility for all the commercial fundraising being undertaken by every company that we support in a private market. 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. That is a separate fundraise and a separate set of challenges than whether there was public resource available, because visibly there had been.

In terms of the European Launcher programme, that is a broader programme than simply this. This was, as I recollect, a German company that was part of the European initiative. In that sense, we are working both through the NATO Starlift programme and through the European Launch initiative that you describe, working collaboratively with partners in Europe and in NATO. There is learning that is drawn from all 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. The reality is—whether it is the Swedes, the Norwegians, or 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. It is in the nature of scientific discovery that that will happen. If you are asking whether we regret the fact that Orbex did not manage to prevail in that competitive marketplace, yes, of course we do.

We were in touch with the Scottish Government at the time of the difficulties in the administration of Orbex, and they share responsibilities in relation to the development of skills. DSIT, the relevant UK Government Ministry, is undertaking this summer a 2026 space sector skills survey, which will aim to update our broader understanding of the transferability of those skills and the need for a pipeline of those skills coming through, because we are committed to space as one of the frontier technologies we want to see developed in Scotland. The skills survey will give us a broader evidence base on which to make judgments in relation to what we can do. In the immediate tactical terms, we made sure that we were in touch with the Scottish Government at the earliest opportunity.

It is an interesting question in the sense that I am 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 has been a lot of criticism of SNIB, that its risk tolerance has been too low. That challenges us all as politicians—those of us in government and those of us in opposition—to have the kind of exchange that we are 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 do not think I am allowed a personal view as the Secretary of State—my own view is that if we are going to see these frontier technologies developed, to have a mature and reasonable debate, sometimes businesses that we back are going to fail. If we do not 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 the Scottish National Investment Bank or the National Wealth Fund, but we probably will not be harnessing and deploying that capital as effectively as we should. It is in the nature of the deployment of capital, private or public, that sometimes you are going to have to, in a conscious and purposeful way, say that you are willing to take some risks.

I worked with an investment firm when I was out of politics for almost nine years. Although it seems like a large allocation of capital by the Scottish Government to the Scottish National Investment Bank, my experience is that the scale and deployment of capital that is now under way through major institutional investors, like private equity houses, means that the war for talent, to get world-class investors—and by that, I mean individuals—is extraordinarily competitive and challenging. First, there are constraints on public sector salaries when you are looking at asset allocators working for SNIB or elsewhere, and the pool of capital is not as large as a lot of large institutional investors now have available. If we are going to see a business organisation like SNIB succeed, it needs to have a large enough pool of capital that it attracts world-class investors; we need to be comfortable with the requirements of what it takes to hold on to that kind of talent, because if you were to settle for less-qualified, less-skilled investors, you end up with a higher failure rate than you would otherwise. 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 the portfolio businesses fail or succeed. I hear you when you express concern in terms of some of the early investments that SNIB has made. 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 is over to the investment professionals? What are the tramlines that should be set appropriately in relation to public policy outcomes that you are wanting to see? My view is, if we are serious, we need to be serious that some frontier technology investments are going to fail. Orbex seems to me an example of where we put significant public funds behind them, they failed to raise money from the private markets, and at that point, you face a judgment as to whether, notwithstanding there not being a credible pathway forward for the business, you pour public money in to backfill the lack of private capital. I am not familiar with all the details of this particular case, but the public funds need to be prepared to say no at that point, as well as yes. Otherwise, we are just regarded as dumb money.

Thank you for the question. First, 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. In that sense, it is, alas, not altogether surprising that he said something that turned out not to be the case. The point that you make is a fair and valid one in relation to the work that this Committee has initiated regarding fixed links. I know that there has been some BBC coverage in Scotland in relation to Shetland’s recent report, and indeed that you travelled to the Faroe Islands and observed the success that has been achieved there. It bears on our earlier discussion in relation to space, not least given the potential benefits for SaxaVord if we were to see fixed links in Shetland. As I understand it, the most recent report of Shetland Islands Council suggests three particular funding routes: one is capital grant funding, typically from the Scottish or the UK Government; secondly, borrowing either through the Public Works Loan Board or through the National Wealth Fund; and thirdly, private finance, which I understand was the model used in the Faroe Islands, underpinned by assurances from the Danish Government, but they essentially raised private capital in loan finance that was then repaid 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 even has the same second name as me—there is potential engagement by the UK Government in relation to the National Wealth Fund, the operation of the Public Works Loan Board, or others. In that sense, I await with 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 have demonstrated the fact that I am genuinely interested to see what the final report of the Committee reflects, and I am approaching it with an open mind.

I will allow Kirsty to lead on this. I would simply observe in terms of the apparent like-for-like comparison, obviously, we are in a position where we have about 500,000 Welsh speakers in Wales and about 70,000 native Gaelic speakers in Scotland, and there has traditionally been a different funding model. Given the interest of this Committee and the work being undertaken across Government in relation to charter renewal, I will let Kirsty speak. She has recently been to the MG ALBA headquarters in Stornoway, much to my jealousy.

That is a question I can answer. Yes.

Chair, forgive me, I have just been passed a message saying I was due at 70 Whitehall for another meeting at 3:20 pm, for which I apologise profusely. I am conscious of my responsibilities to answer your questions, but I am under a little time pressure.

Thank you so much. With one leap, he was free. Thank you very much.