I will respond briefly, and then Philip Rycroft may want to come in. There are two issues there. The first is when events move fast; the other is how Parliaments scrutinise the outcome of an intergovernmental discussion.
By way of preface, I should say that I cannot speak to the detail of either of your specific examples, so I will give you a general answer of how such things work, which is informed by my knowledge of those two issues. When something blows up fast, the nature of the relationship between the two Governments is that officials and ministers know one another, so they can lift up the phone, and it is possible to have those conversations. I am sure that people on both sides would think that such conversations are sometimes more effective and sometimes less effective. In cases that I was more directly involved in, such as the outbreaks of swine flu and—this is a very good example—the Glasgow airport bombing, there was very good intergovernmental contact, communication and co-operation on a fast-moving issue. That is by way of illustration to show that dealing with such issues does not all go through the formal process of a JMC plenary that meets once a year.
On your example from a European negotiation—again, I was not directly involved in the lead-up to the particular negotiation that you described—in general, the JMC on Europe is the place in which ministers from the four Administrations come together to discuss and agree the UK line, which is then developed and delivered in negotiations in Brussels. That is the process and the structure that allows the Governments to work together on an issue of that kind. Again, I am sure that there will be occasions when the four Governments find that process more or less successful or helpful, but it exists. It is worth noting that, even when the JMC plenary went into abeyance for a time, the JMC on Europe remained functioning. When things get used, that shows that there is a use for them.
Finally, on your point about parliamentary scrutiny, I would repeat what I have said: if you regard this issue as not different but simply part of the work of Governments, it is possible for Parliaments to scrutinise it in the way that Parliaments scrutinise the work of Governments generally. One reflection is that perhaps it is not so clear to parliamentary committees, which tend to have a portfolio focus, where intergovernmental relations would sit. It is interesting that you are having this discussion and inviting us to give evidence because, by its nature, this committee has that focus. I am just speculating, but that might also be something that the Conveners Group would ask the First Minister about, given that an important part of her work is to relate to the other Governments within the UK. The mechanisms are there, but there is scope for their use to evolve as the bandwidth in this relationship gets bigger with the changes to the devolution settlement.