Transparency of intergovernmental activity and its implications for parliamentary scrutiny

The Committee recommends that the IGR process should be less ad hoc, with a formal, transparent and structured schedule of interministerial meetings which should be published in advance and communicated to each UK legislature by the Standing Secretariat.

The Committee supports this recommendation with regards to reporting on transparency around the Scottish Government’s position. We also believe that there is a need to strengthen joint reporting of interministerial meetings through a strengthened IGR secretariat. This should include a summary of the position of each government in attendance (see paragraph 48 below).

The Committee recommends that the role of the Standing Secretariat needs to be considerably strengthened including as follows –
The Secretariat should be based outside of London with additional resources to those currently available;
The Secretariat should be more public-facing including an on-line presence similar to the British Irish Council secretariat;
There should be a greater focus on promoting transparency and accountability in line with its remit as set out in the 2022 Review;
This should include criteria agreed at an intergovernmental level for all communiques including around the minimum level of detail which is required to be provided to support transparency and accountability;
The intergovernmental criteria should include a commitment to provide in each communique a summary of the position of each government in attendance;
The development of an intergovernmental activity hub;
More emphasis on its independence from government(s) as well as impartiality between governments;
A requirement to appear before parliamentary committees if requested.

The Committee’s considers that interminsterial engagement should be supported by proportionate reporting of all meetings at which officials are present, to strengthen transparency and enable effective parliamentary scrutiny. The Committee further considers that the Written Agreement on intergovernmental relations between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should be revised to reflect this.

The Committee notes that, while the UK Government’s position is that its relationship with the devolved governments has been reset, the Scottish Government’s position is that "significant work is still required from the UK Government to fully reset the relationship" 1 UK Government. (2025). Written submission. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/uk-governments-response-to-the-inquiry-into-transparency-of-intergovernmental-activity-and-its-impli.pdf .

The Committee notes that there is a risk that resolving these differences regarding a reset of relations is overly dependent upon the good will of those taking part. We agree with the findings of the Dunlop Review which stated that there is a need to improve the effectiveness of intergovernmental relations " regardless of any future changes in the political makeup of the UK Government or devolved administrations. 17 UK Government. (2021). The Dunlop Review into UK Government Union capability. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-dunlop-review-into-uk-government-union-capability

The Committee has previously noted that "there remains an ongoing intergovernmental disagreement regarding the extent to which the executive and legislative autonomy of the devolved governments and legislatures have been undermined by the constitutional arrangements put in place post-EU exit. 4 Scottish Parliament. (2023). Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee 'How Devolution is Changing Post-EU'. Retrieved from https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/Committees/Report/CEEAC/2023/10/24/6692fb8e-0bf0-47cd-a1ba-cff461d9395d These arrangements include the UK Internal Market Act and the operation of the Sewel Convention post-EU exit.

The Committee also notes that there has been significant disagreement between the devolved institutions and the UK Government regarding how the post-EU regulatory environment should be managed within the UK, and this remains unresolved.

The Committee notes that at questions to the First Minister in the Welsh Senedd on 10 th March reference was made to an unpublished note from the Prime Minister to his UK Cabinet colleagues. The record of proceedings 19 Welsh Parliament. (2026). Plenary, 10 March 2026. Retrieved from https://record.assembly.wales/Plenary/15793#C757379 includes a direct quote from the note which states that "an overly deferential or laissez-faire approach to devolved Government engagement almost inevitably creates political challenges or misses positive opportunities. We should be confident in our ability to deliver directly in those nations, including through direct spending, even when devolved Governments may oppose this.” i Paragraph 74 was agreed by division (For 4 (Clare Adamson MSP, George Adam MSP, Keith Brown MSP, Patrick Harvie MSP); Against 3 (Jamie Halcro Johnston MSP, Stephen Kerr MSP, Neil Bibby MSP); Abstentions 0).

The Committee’s view is that after more than a quarter century of devolution there remains significant concern around levels of understanding of the powers and role and of the devolved governments and legislatures within Whitehall. There appears as a result, a lack of thought in some cases about how devolution affects the development of policy by the UK Government and passage of legislation at the UK Parliament.

The Committee recommends that there needs to be a thorough independent review of how UK Government departments and civil servants interact with devolution. The review should highlight best practice as well as improvements which can be made to intergovernmental working given the increasingly complex shared governance space. The review could also usefully consider how working with the devolved governments is recognised as a valuable element of professional development and career progression within the civil service.

The Committee notes the view of the Scottish Government that further work across the UK civil service is required “to increase capability when it comes to dealing with devolved governments and legislatures raise standards in the UK Government towards the best practice already demonstrated in some parts of the UK Government.” 3 Scottish Government. (2025). Written submission. Retrieved from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.parliament.scot/-/media/files/committees/constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/correspondence/2025/igr--scottish-government.pdf The Committee recognises that there are good examples of some UK Government departments working well with their colleagues in the devolved governments and agrees with the Scottish Government that this best practice should be achievable across all UK Government departments. Equally, we recognise that this best practice also applies to civil servants within the devolved governments.

The Committee’s view is that the resetting of intergovernmental of relations should include improving the effectiveness of engagement between governments and legislatures. The Committee therefore recommends that Devolution Guidance Note 12 should be updated to support clear and consistent expectations around UK Ministers appearing before the Committees of the devolved legislatures. Within the shared governance space which now exists between the UK Government and the devolved governments those expectations should be that invitations are normally accepted. (See also paragraph 106 below) Equally we recognise that improved levels of engagement should also apply to Scottish Ministers appearing before Westminster committees.

The Committee welcomes the commitment of the UK Government to support the role and the remit of the Interparliamentary Forum and recommends that Devolution Guidance Note 12 is amended to reflect this commitment. (See also paragraph 92 above).

The Committee also considers that the four legislatures of the United Kingdom should jointly explore how interparliamentary relations could be further developed and strengthened. The Committee therefore recommends that the legislatures consider commissioning research on potential approaches to enhancing interparliamentary cooperation and scrutiny, and that this proposal be discussed at a future meeting of the Interparliamentary Forum.

The Committee welcomes the commitment of the UK Government to strengthen the Sewel Convention with a new memorandum of understanding. We reiterate our previous recommendation in 2023 of —
the need for a new Memorandum of Understanding and supplementary agreements between the UK Government and the Devolved Governments. This should specifically address how devolution now works outside of the EU and based on a clear constitutional design including consideration of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. This should be accompanied by new Devolution Guidance notes and other operational guidance notes. 1 Scottish Parliament. (2023). Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee 'How Devolution is Changing Post-EU'. Retrieved from https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/Committees/Report/CEEAC/2023/10/24/6692fb8e-0bf0-47cd-a1ba-cff461d9395d

The Committee welcomes the update provided by the Scottish Government that “collaborative discussions” are ongoing between their officials and UK Government officials. The Committee recommends that our successor should prioritise scrutiny of the outcome of those discussions early in Session 7.

The Committee notes that the principles for Common Frameworks were agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) JMC in October 2017 between the UK government and Scottish and Welsh Governments and that these were endorsed by the NI Executive in June 2020. Yet over 8 years since that initial agreement it is striking that a majority of Common Frameworks have yet to be agreed by the Scottish Government.

The Committee also notes that although the Scottish Parliament has twice voted by division to support repeal of the UK Internal Market Act in Session 6, the possibility of repeal was not considered as part of the UK Government review of UKIMA. We also note that this has impacted negatively on the Scottish Government’s agreement of Common Frameworks “where the IMA continues to present obstacles to successful operation, such as the Resources and Waste Common Framework…” 1 Scottish Government. (2026). Letter from Angus Robertson MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture providing the Scottish Government’s approach to the finalisation of Common Frameworks. Retrieved from https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-constitution-europe-external-affairs-and-culture-committee/correspondence/2026/finalisation-of-common-frameworks

The Committee’s view is that it is therefore unclear how further progress can be made in agreeing Common Frameworks in policy areas impacted by the UK Internal Market Act. In our view this undermines certainty and trust among businesses and other stakeholders that the UK’s regulatory environment is being managed effectively through robust intergovernmental relations. It also hinders Ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny.

The Committee supports both of these recommendations.

The Committee also recommends amending Rule 9.3.3 of the Standing Orders to require the Scottish Government to set out in the Policy Memorandum accompanying a Government Bill –
whether the market access principles in the UK internal market Act are likely to affect the policy objectives of the legislative proposal, if UKIMA has shaped the legislative approach and, if so, how; whether consideration has been given to seeking an exclusion and, if so, provide details on the scope of the exclusion sought and the exclusion process under which it has been made (i.e., through a common framework, through the minimum economic impact process or by the reserve process;
whether and how common framework agreements have affected or may affect the policy objectives of the legislative proposal and, if they do have an impact, provide details.

However, the Committee is also of the view that it is difficult to see transparency and stakeholder engagement improving while there are fundamental constitutional differences at an intergovernmental level.

The Committee recommends that the Concordat on International Relations – Scotland is revised and updated. 8 UK Government. (2010). Memorandum of understanding between the UK Government, Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-uk-government-scottish-ministers-the-welsh-ministers-and-the-northern-ireland-executive-committee This should set out how the UK Government and Scottish Ministers will co-operate with respect to international relations including with regards to UK-EU relations.

The Committee notes that the expected substantial increase in volume of secondary legislation to implement dynamic regulatory alignment raises significant resource questions for both the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. At the same time the Committee reiterates our emphasis on the fundamental constitutional principle that the Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the exercise of all legislative powers within devolved competence while also acknowledging that this scrutiny needs to be proportionate.

The Committee welcomes that Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government officials are currently reviewing Statutory Instrument Protocol 2 to ensure effective and proportionate scrutiny of all UK SIs made within devolved competence, including those anticipated to arise from a requirement for dynamic regulatory alignment with the EU.

Dynamic regulatory alignment illustrates many of the themes and scrutiny challenges highlighted elsewhere in this report. For example, the opportunities for Scotland to influence the UK-EU relationship and other bilateral trade deals exist only in the shared space of UK intergovernmental activity.

Issues which may arise in devolved policy areas which will fall under a UK-EU agreement are also influenced by the existence of common frameworks, governed by the operation of the UK Internal Market Act 2020, and shaped by the willingness of successive UK Governments to take and exercise powers in devolved areas, often without the consent of Scottish Ministers.

The UK leaving the EU drove the establishment of legislative and non-legislative mechanisms to manage intra-UK difference, but these mechanisms now exist in a form which fundamentally changes the operation and shape of the devolution settlement. As the Committee has previously noted the reach of these mechanisms extends beyond the scope of former EU competence and the areas which are likely to be governed by dynamic alignment.

In the Committee's view, it is accordingly essential that the Scottish Parliament is notified by the Scottish Government of all SIs containing provision within devolved competence, irrespective of whether they arise from dynamic alignment. The interrelationship between the issues also informs the Committee's view that the Session 7 committee responsible for oversight of UK-EU and external relations should also be responsible for scrutiny of the operation of the devolution settlement through the scrutiny of the common frameworks programme, UKIMA and its exclusions process, the operation of the Sewel convention including the taking of delegated powers and the exercise of delegated powers in devolved areas.

The Committee notes that there is likely to be a substantial increase in the volume of SSIs and SIs containing provision within devolved competence as a consequence of dynamic alignment. We further note that the impact on parliamentary resources will be dependent on the transposition model agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish Governments and the extent to which EU law within devolved competence is transposed through SSIs and/or SIs. It will also be dependent on the agreement between the UK and the EU and whether there is any flexibility in relation to the transposition of EU law.

The Committee notes that procedures for the transposition and implementation of EU legislation in the UK were previously set out in the Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy. The Committee further notes that if a similar transposition model is introduced for dynamic regulatory alignment that similar procedures will be needed. If so, it is essential that this includes consideration of the need for transparency and Ministerial accountability.