���˿���

The plan is that you all know about the secret plan.

When we took evidence from the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation, I thought that I might have to pry to get the figure, so I was shocked when the representative openly said that 40 per cent of the money from Skills Development Scotland goes to back-of-house stuff and 60 per cent goes to training. As you know, for colleges, it is 90:10—10 per cent goes to the back-of-house work. My concern, which I think is a concern of the committee, is that, although that figure of 10 per cent is arbitrary—I have concerns about that, too—there is an argument here. I know that you have an amendment on the issue in a later group, but could we look at it more, because there was a lot of concern with regard to the issue?

I am interested in the LCM question because, for my sins, I used to be Minister for Parliamentary Business, and I am aware of the issue. It also links to the relationship building, as my Welsh colleague and I used to almost tag-team in various intergovernmental meetings. Those relationships are important, and they are important from a parliamentary point of view as well.

With LCMs in particular, there is always the impression that everything is sent through at the last minute to the devolved Administrations. If there was a process, as you suggested, that gave Parliament the opportunity to get involved, that could make a big difference in the transparency of the whole scenario.

Finally, when we were down in London, we were given international examples of where interparliamentary relations work better. Keith Brown has mentioned Canada, which has interprovincial legislative co-operation, and Germany, Australia and Belgium have interparliamentary co-operation between the federal and regional governments. However, those are all federal states. Our key problem is the fact that, although our ad hoc unwritten constitution is flexible and may be helpful, it is at the same time holding us back.

Good morning, everyone. Professor Wincott—or, given that I am talking about building relationships between Parliaments, I will just say Dan—has suggested that building relationships between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd could be valuable, noting that both Governments do that. What are the panel’s views—and Dan’s in particular—on strengthened interparliamentary co-operation between the devolved legislatures? Does it require a formal mechanism, or can we achieve it through informal channels? How would the arrangements work in practice? What would be the benefit to the scrutiny of intergovernmental activity?

Anyone else? As he grasps at straws.

Good morning, everyone. It is nice to see Professor Tomkins, and unusual to see him at the other side of the table instead of here with the rest of us.

Ironically, as a former minister who was in charge of referenda and participatory democracy, I agree with Professor Tomkins that our two citizens assemblies were too vague and our questions were too big and could have been broken down. Assisted dying is a perfect example. When I came in as minister, I asked, “Why don’t we have a citizens assembly on a difficult question such as assisted dying?” I cited what Ireland did with some of the difficult questions that it faced. However, that is entirely different from what we are talking about today.

When I was a minister, I would talk to people who, like me, were pro-independence, and they would say, “You’re in charge of referenda, George. Just do it.” I would cite many of the arguments that have been made today. I would say that we would not gain anything, we would not be any further forward and we would be in the Catalonian situation.

I take on board what Professor Tomkins said about being careful what we wish for and the idea that the flexibility of the UK constitution might be helpful. Our advisors have talked about the Canadian paradox, whereby the UK Supreme Court took on one aspect of the question, whereas Quebec could not enable a referendum on its own—that would be for the Canadian Government. We did not get to the next part, however—that, if there was a clear process and reasoning, and if the political process got to the stage where a referendum could be held, there would be open dialogue and everything would be done in good faith. Would that kind of aspect have helped us here, so that we were not almost in a no-man’s-land? As every one of you has said, when the act happened and everybody knew that we were moving forward politically with the argument, the UK Government had the right to negotiate in good faith, rather than just saying, “Now is not the time.”

But we cannot even get to that stage politically, although we know that a majority of Scots believe in independence. That is where the frustration comes in: there is not the ability for us to go forward.

How would the bill support teachers to make sure that they are aware of what they can and cannot do in that scenario? That is still a major concern—we just received some details from the Educational Institute of Scotland with regard to the bill. How can teachers feel secure that they are still in a safe place to be able to manage their classes?

Thank you.