Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 24 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 3353 contributions

|

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

Does anyone else have any experience or knowledge of these things?

We have discussed it as a committee, and we have met with members of committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords because the scope for co-ordinated inquiries—let us call them that, if not joint inquiries—is great. One challenge that we have had here has been getting UK ministers to come and speak to committees with the regularity that we would like. Joint approaches might work better, because, constitutionally, ministers are responsible only to the Parliament that they sit in—I understand that. It would be helpful if there was a broader approach.

My second question is to do with the EU-UK reset, which could be another mythical creature for all I know. I am wondering about the consequences of agreements, particularly for the food and drink aspects of any reset. I do not know how near we are to having some agreement with the European Union, but undoubtedly one of the demands of the European Union will be that we operate in lockstep with its regulations. Setting aside the issue of whether we should be in lockstep at all, I am interested in the consequences for this Parliament of that arrangement, because, based on the reports that we get of the volume of regulation that would come our way, we would struggle to do anything other than just nod at its coming and going. There would be no scrutiny whatsoever.

Can I have some commentary from those of you who have a view on it about the consequences of a lockstep regulatory agreement between the UK and the European Union for scrutiny, accountability and democracy?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

We already know, from when we were members of the European Union, that we have no ability to say no. You sign up to the whole thing and that is it. Do any of the academics want to comment?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

But, ultimately, we could not reject secondary legislation that came to us in regulations from Brussels, could we?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

I thought that you maybe had an inside track.

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

I am going to shock my colleagues by reading the room and asking only one question—I will leave my 99 other questions for another occasion. My question is quite broad and revisits UKIMA. The committee has talked about UKIMA several times previously, but given what I have heard the witnesses say about UKIMA today, I wonder whether you expect there to be any change at all in the legislation—in the act itself. Alternatively, do you think that any changes will be around the ad hocery that we discussed earlier—how people speak about and signal to one another how issues that might arise should be dealt with? I will come to Professor Horsley first. You have written a bit about this, have you not?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

It would be non-statutory, though.

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

Is it me now?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

I missed my cue completely—dear, oh dear.

Part of the problem that we face in the context of this discussion involves the consequences of Brexit. As the convener said, things were rolling along fairly calmly until we got to the point where we were legislating to depart from the European Union. At that point, all the working relationships that are necessary for these relationships to work without some sort of statutory backstop—if I may use that term in connection with departing the European Union—did not hold up, because all of the party-political positioning overwhelmed the need for a co-operative spirit.

Professor McEwen, in answer to a question a few minutes ago, you said, “we are not seeing that.” That is part of the problem with all this in the governmental relations stuff: everyone recognises that something needs to be in place, but we cannot see anything.

Paul Anderson, you said that we have the processes and structures in place. I am dubious about that, because I cannot see them. Everything is opaque. That does not lend itself to good working practice, does it?

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

They tell us that there was a meeting—that is what they tell us.

Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee [Draft]

Transparency of Intergovernmental Activity

Meeting date: 2 October 2025

Stephen Kerr

The process seems to depend on ad hocery, culture and the personalities involved. Personalities play a big part in politics—I understand that. Michael Gove and Fergus Ewing seem to get on well, for example, and Kate Forbes seems to get on with everybody she encounters in the UK Government. However, you cannot rest intergovernmental relations upon that structure.

Professor McEwen mentioned something that I am passionate about. The Dunlop review brought forward some pragmatic ideas about how to structure the working relations between ministers in the different levels of government in the United Kingdom. One of his many suggestions was the idea of having a secretariat. The fact that there is not a neutral secretariat to guide the path of those meetings, to set them up, to make them happen and to produce the documentation, is a weakness.

I am doing a lot of speaking and I should not be. You should be giving us evidence. Professor McEwen, do you have a view on that issue?