Thread by @mbmpolicy

NEW BLOG: We follow up an earlier analysis of cross-border communications over the GRR Bill, using new information accessed via a review of an FoI request, and material both governments have submitted to the forthcoming s35 court case. murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/12/sco…

We found meetings were not held fortnightly, as described to the Scottish Parliament in April. There were ten meetings in total during the year. The previous FoI response omitted information held by the SG which would have made this clear.

Further, in June 2022 the SG denied to the Committee that any formal process relating to s104 had yet begun. Yet in January 2022 the SG began what it described in emails as a “formal process” in relation to s104 Orders. Again, the previous FoI response failed to reveal this.

In addition, SG was very slow in responding to requests from the UK govt for information needed to take the s104 process forward. It did not provide full information until early October 2022. Again, the previous FoI response failed to reveal this.

Ministers told MSPs in April 2023 that the s104 process was the main vehicle for dealing with devolved/reserved issues. However, SG's glacial engagement with the process suggests that in 2022 it was still badly under-prepared for that discussion, or chose to drag its feet.

The SG continues to provide no information relating to its claim in January 2023 that various specific topics were discussed with the UKG during 2022 (even the dates of these discussions), implying that these discussions were too informal to create any sort of official record.

The FoI review response therefore reinforces how much the Scottish Government relied on informal, unminuted, irregular contact with the UK Government Equalities Office, conducted entirely below senior civil service level, to assume there would be no issues.

Lead responsibility for ensuring discussions happened at the right level of formality and detail, and were properly recorded, lay with the SG as the Bill's sponsor. Yet the SG chose to rest on feedback through low-level informal channels, until well into October 2022.

The handling of this within the GEO would also bear further scrutiny. Given EHRC concerns, there was good reason for the GEO to have sought to put discussion on a more formal footing. A post-mortem of this as an intergovernmental process would have lessons for both governments.

Separately, material included in papers submitted to the court raises questions about what briefing MSPs received at Stage 3 of the Bill process.

We note that information withheld from the first FoI response, and only released on review, raises questions about the accuracy of picture painted to MSPs at various stages about the nature of SG/UKG interaction over the Bill.

While the SG relied heavily on failures of intergovernmental liaison by the UKG in its initial objections to the s35 Order, this barely features in its most recent material for the court. Recent information suggests that MSPs might want to examine further what happened here.

Our blog is reported in today's @Telegraph (not online at the moment). We note that the current court case might have been avoided, had the SG taken a different approach to liaison with the UK government.