Chamber and committees

That is helpful, but I would point out that in our “UK Internal Market Inquiry” report, we came to the conclusion that, although such scrutiny is difficult, it is actually very important. As a couple of you have illustrated today with regard to business and trade, goods might well start off in one country but the process is completed in another country, and we need clear technical arrangements so that businesses and environmental non-governmental organisations can lobby us as parliamentarians and we can raise issues in which our constituents are interested.

Again, that answer was very useful. Do any of the other witnesses want to comment on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and how we might deliver the transparency that we need in implementing the TCA?

I take it, then, that there is agreement that this is really important. The challenge is how we deliver it in practice.

It is interesting for us in Scotland to note Dr Zuleeg’s comments about a parallel discussion happening in the EU with the involvement of the European Parliament. That is something for us to take away in respect of our relations with European parliamentarians, devolved Parliaments across the UK and the UK Parliament. The point, perhaps, is: if you do not ask, you do not get.

I, too, welcome the fact that responses were provided to several of the points that we made in our report, but I was disappointed in the responses in three areas in particular.

The fact that the Scottish Government did not agree with our recommendation that it update its website to give us information about where it intends to align with EU law presents a challenge not just for us as a Parliament, but for stakeholders. They need to understand what changes are likely to be made, particularly in the context of the discussion that we have just had with witnesses about the challenge of tracking the TCA, and how important that is for businesses, the agricultural sector, the fishing industry and environmental lobbyists, given the need to get legislation right.

I was concerned that there was not agreement on flagging what consultations had been carried out, and by the suggestion that that was not proportionate. That cuts across the transparency and accountability element.

I would like us to request further comment from the Government, because it avoided commenting directly on the proposal that we made for a memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament on the delivery of effective scrutiny. I am very conscious that a lot of good work has been done by our clerks and Scottish Government officials, but a memorandum of understanding would provide further clarity and would help people to manage timescales—for example, on how keeping pace powers could be effectively monitored for the purposes of transparency.

I note that it was not only our committee that considered the consultation issue to be important; the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee did so, too. That is important for us to note.

That is very helpful. Do any other witnesses want to come in on the issues of accountability and transparency?

I appreciate that, convener; thank you. I have a quick supplementary question for Dr Zuleeg. You talked about the issue of the PPA and how it actually works. This is clearly about the UK and the EU, but what is the diplomacy for other European countries such as Spain and Germany, which have very strong federal systems? How do they ensure that their Governments and federal systems, which have decisions taken at sub-national level, are properly represented in the PPA, so that there is consistency and transparency of the type that we are looking for?

That is helpful, because Maurice Golden has just triggered the point that I was very keen to get a response on. I thought that point 6 in the Institution for Government’s recommendations, about dispute resolution, was interesting. Maurice Golden has suggested an interparliamentary body as one way of holding Governments to account and you have suggested an independent advisory panel established as a standing body to consider the competence issues that arise in disputes. I would be keen to get your view, and maybe also Michael Clancy’s, about different ways in which you could do that; what are the pros and cons?

I want to formally thank the witnesses for all the submissions that we received in advance of the meeting—it is useful to get different perspectives, even when you are saying similar things. It is still good to go through the high-level issues that you have raised and the detail.

The issue that I want to follow up is: what do we do about this? Even from the previous hour, you will have detected a difference in emphasis and thoughts among committee members. To go back to the points that Professor McHarg made about the age of the convention, the issue of clarity, what we mean by normality, and the whole issue of political consent and context, there is an issue about lessons learned from 1999 to 2022, and with the 2016 legislation, and what we think now as a Parliament.

I am interested in the two sets of potential solutions and changes from Professor McHarg and the Institute for Government. There is an issue about accountability, which was clearly not designed in by Sewel. At the UK level, ministers can initiate a piece of legislation and not be accountable at that level—there is no structure for that. There is also an issue about how we hold the Scottish Government to account on secondary legislation and how the UK Government is held to account on secondary legislation. However, at a higher level, with primary legislation, there is no accountability.

The Institute for Government and Professor McHarg have made some good and clear recommendations. Will you give us a quick summary at a high level and mention some practical changes?

That is very helpful.

Is a gendered analysis taking place to review that work? That is one of the suggestions that has been made by JustRight Scotland, given the particular experience that we are aware of in terms of trafficking and of sexual abuse that people might have experienced in-country before they leave.

I have a follow-up question for Pat Togher about supporting people once they have arrived. Again, it is using the experience of previous refugees—in particular, people from Afghanistan and Syria whom I met recently. They still have challenges in accessing national health service support.

It is not just about post-traumatic stress disorder or trauma from the experience of having to become a refugee. In particular, some of the Ukrainian refugees are older people or people with underlying health conditions that they had before they became refugees, so there is an issue about how to provide support in the short term through access to medicines and the immediate and on-going medical support that somebody needs. They might not have had that support for four weeks. How do we then get them fitted into our NHS system, which is already under pressure? Are the processes clear for that? People have expressed concerns that it is difficult for people, linguistically, to work out what they are meant to do and how to get that support once they have arrived.