Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will perhaps open up the issues more widely. On the issue of the potential for increased visitor numbers to ameliorate some of the cuts to cultural organisations, has there been any assessment of whether that is a realistic proposition, given the impact of the cost of living crisis on consumer spending, which, in this case, is not driving inflation?

Professor Forrester, do you have any thoughts?

Do I have time for a final question?

Professor Forrester, would you like to comment on that?

I will start with a question for Professor Barnard. We have touched on lots of elements of areas of disagreement between the EU and the UK and how they might be resolved. However, I am keen to hear any further thoughts on that as well as thoughts about the operation of the TCA, what the gaps are and how the operation could be strengthened. I am keen to close off those aspects as well as to hear witnesses’ thoughts about how dynamic they envisage that the future governance of the TCA will be.

What would be the consequences if the TCA was not in place?

Thank you, Dr Zuleeg. I will stick with you for the final question. How much activity do you envisage happening between the Partnership Council and committees of the devolved legislatures?

Thank you Dr Zuleeg. I am happy to open up either of the last two questions, about the consequences of the TCA breaking down and about how the Partnership Council might operate, to the other witnesses. Do panel members have any thoughts?

I will go to Professor Eckes and then Professor Barnard.

It strikes me that Brexit, Covid and Ukraine could be categorised as not being normal events and that, therefore, legislation as a result of those not-normal events that involves devolved competences would be in the not-normal space. Nonetheless, as Professor McEwen pointed out, some legislation could be as a result of those not-normal events but encompass other parts that are not required as a result of those events. In addition, if there is a series of not-normal events, does there come a point where that becomes normal? I hope not, but that is potentially the case.

We have heard some excellent ideas about dispute avoidance. Governments, wherever they are in the world, are often quite late in introducing legislation for a variety of reasons, but I am interested in exploring how we can put in a system that allows for dispute resolution almost outwith the political sphere. We have heard a lot about devolved Administrations and the UK Government being involved in dispute resolution, but it strikes me that that often involves a political space, and that is never a good place to resolve disputes. Is there perhaps a role for a new body that encompasses parliamentarians and is interparliamentary rather than just intergovernmental as a potential mechanism for resolving disputes?

I think, and I expect the committee to agree, that we want the scope and impact of the bill to be felt throughout Scotland. Therefore, the argument that we should not add additional bodies because we want to limit the scope of the bill appears to me to be contrary to the aims of the bill.

With regard to education institutions, we do not need to consult to know that students face food poverty. If individuals on the committee or in Parliament are not aware that education institutions and good food nation plans will help to alleviate food poverty, that is depressingly concerning. There is absolutely no need to consult if we are educated and informed about the requirements for good food nation plans and the impact that they can have for students and more widely for education institutions.

I therefore press amendment 19.