Chamber and committees

That is a very helpful answer.

Following on from the questions that I asked Mr Salamone, where should we spend our energies as a Parliament? I would welcome your thoughts on the priorities for us in holding our Government to account and engaging in cross-parliamentary liaison, for example, in the context of the climate crisis and economic opportunities. Further to your previous answer, what advice would you give us as a Parliament working within the UK with the other devolved Parliaments and as a Parliament building links with Europe? Should we do that through the network of representative offices, or should there be direct parliamentary liaison? What would be your recommendations for us as a committee?

Thank you. That is helpful. I am conscious that we are at the start of our parliamentary session, so these may be issues for us to reflect on. My thanks to both the witnesses.

That is useful feedback for our Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and our Economy and Fair Work Committee. Our challenge is in scrutinising overall relations between Scotland and the EU following Brexit. Your comments about interparliamentary liaison, particularly your diplomatic answer in response to the convener, were very useful. We will want to keep pursuing that issue.

There is also a challenge for us in relation to the keeping pace agenda on trade. To what extent can we make better use of our Scottish offices in Brussels and other parts of the EU with regard to keeping in touch with developments that take place in the EU? The Conference on the Future of Europe was mentioned earlier. Are there useful lessons that we can learn from that project that would allow us to anticipate what happens next in the EU? Such bilateral relationships would at least allow us to see what was coming and to think about the areas in which it would suit Scotland and the rest of the UK to align.

I will follow up on Mark Ruskell’s question. It was said that the procurement process could be impacted. Your written submission says:

“whereas regulations affecting the production or sale of goods are subject to the market access principles, regulations affecting the use of goods are not.”

Does that mean that procurement or planning would not be covered by market access principles, because that is about how products are used through Government systems, not about whether products are made in a certain way? Could you draw out the difference? It is quite important that we have that on the record. I want to check that I have understood the representations that we have had.

I am keen to follow up on questions about divergence and accountability. I thank the witnesses for their briefings. Professor Weatherill, you and others have given us submissions that identify pressures from the UK internal market to lower standards, but other evidence that we have received suggests that divergence could have a positive impact. For example, the Institute for Government suggested that divergence could enable the testing of the effectiveness of policy implementation, evaluate success and encourage collaborative learning, and Fidra talked about its potential environmental benefits. Will you give us a sense of the space for devolved governments to apply policy change within their competence? You have said that that is limited. What is the scope to resolve any disagreements on those issues?

I indeed intended to follow up this question with other witnesses. Professor McEwen, I will come to you next. You also suggested in your submission that there would be benefits to divergence. One of the things that you highlighted was the difference between the production of goods and the use of goods. That potentially would relate to public procurement or planning requirements.

Could you say a little bit more about that and pick up the issues that you have mentioned about accountability in terms of intergovernmental and interparliamentary transparency, which has been emphasised by many of the other respondents we have had?

That takes me to the second part of my question. What is the scope for such disagreements to be resolved? We can think of the example of changes in climate policy, which are not necessarily experimental but are definitely good practice. What is the scope for interaction between devolved and UK Governments to resolve those issues?

We are still waiting to find out whether there will be the capacity for divergence. You also mentioned in your evidence the need for more intergovernmental and interparliamentary transparency. Can you say a bit about the recommendations that you made in that regard, and how this committee should be following them?

That is useful information, convener, thank you.

Professor Hunt, could you comment about the action that is needed? I very much welcomed the submission that you were partly responsible for, but we also had a submission from Scottish Environment LINK that raised the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the issue of the importance of the accountability in Scotland of, for example, the Office for the Internal Market. To come back to the question that I asked Professor McEwen about parliamentary scrutiny, given that timescales are tight, how can we deliver better intergovernmental relations and also better scrutiny though interparliamentary liaison work? Could you say a little bit more about that, with reference to your submission?

That is a helpful answer. In particular, we might be interested in that issue about the closed process and to what extent there is any transparency on those issues from the Office for the Internal Market.

Could you finish by saying a bit about dispute resolutions? I mentioned that in relation to my first question to Professor Weatherill.