Chamber and committees

I will change topic ever so slightly. Last night, we were at a British Veterinary Association dinner. Justine Shotton, its president, talked about the sustainability of the veterinary workforce as a result of Brexit—recruitment and retention issues and the pressures that vets are being put under because of vet certification. As a result of Covid, a lot more people have pets, and as a result of leaving Europe there are different requirements for pets that are travelling. What is the UK Government doing to support the recruitment of vets into the United Kingdom? I recognise that Scotland also has its own responsibility for that.

It is fair to say that the CEEAC Committee recognised that there are significant differences between the market access principles in UKIMA and in the EU single market. In particular, the list of exclusions on public interest grounds from the application of the mutual recognition principle is much narrower in UKIMA. There are differences that impact on devolved competences.

We also took evidence from stakeholders outwith Parliament on various changes in legislation. For example, Scottish Environment LINK said:

“there has been little to no stakeholder engagement on any environmental common frameworks”.

We had something similar from NFU Scotland, which said that it had “not been entirely sighted” on the common frameworks.

How can we, as legislators across the United Kingdom, ensure that we engage stakeholders who have appropriate evidence and views on how we move forward in our post-EU-exit circumstances?

I welcome that comment, but I make a plea to you to understand that the Scottish Parliament, too, has procedures, so the late laying of SIs has an impact on the ability of the Scottish Parliament and this committee to scrutinise new legislation being introduced by Westminster.

As Mr Fairlie has said, we will wait and see how it turns out.

With regard to the common frameworks, one of the key elements of evidence that came in for the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s internal markets inquiry was about the risk of the shift towards intergovernmental working reducing

“democratic oversight of the Executive and a less consultative policy-making process.”

Professor Nicola McEwen noted:

“Parliamentary committees in every UK legislature have called for greater transparency and greater oversight … not least in light of its increased importance in the context of both Brexit and Covid.”

How do you plan to engage more with parliamentary legislators when you come up with new policies and new ways of working?

That moves us on to a report that our Economy and Fair Work Committee carried out on the supply chain. It looked at—

Thank you for recognising the world renown of Scottish seed potatoes. I am interested in the proposals regarding Northern Ireland and in how the current discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol might have an impact.

I have a quick question on the impact that Brexit has had on seed potato farmers in Scotland. What is the UK Government doing to alleviate the issues? Might that involve considering where farmers in the UK source their seed potatoes?

Thank you for joining us, Mr Eustice. I want to expand on the points that my colleague Mr Fairlie made. When the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, on which I sit, took evidence from Dr McCorkindale, he suggested that

“two important constitutional considerations ... arise from the Subsidy Control Bill”.

First,

“there are additional powers by which the UK Government might intervene with regard to the exercise of executive power by Scottish Ministers”,

such as calling in subsidies or referring them to the Competition and Markets Authority, whereas Scottish ministers and other devolved Administrations do not have equivalent powers. Secondly, he talked about the extent to which the bill

“constrains the scope of existing and future devolved executive power.”

Can you can comment on those findings?

As Ariane Burgess said, the bill, as introduced, requires Scottish ministers and relevant authorities to

“have regard ... to the scope for food-related issues to affect”

matters that are listed in sections 1(5) and 7(6). Those matters currently include social and economic wellbeing, the environment, health and economic development.

My amendments 37 and 51 would add animal welfare to the lists, and amendments 36 and 50 would expand the outcome of health, such that it would read:

“health and physical and mental wellbeing (including in particular through the provision of health and social care services)”.

My amendments reflect evidence that was given to the committee at stage 1 that there should be specific reference to animal welfare and to all types of health, as well as to the impacts on the provision of health and social care in the lists of outcomes. I believe that my amendments address those concerns and I therefore urge the committee to support the amendments in my name.

In your introduction, you mentioned the impact of Covid-19 on island communities. Like the whole of Scotland and the rest of the world, we have had negative impacts, but important lessons have been learned, with islanders recognising their resilience.

Last week, I was at a Community Land Scotland event that involved considering how asset management and asset ownership help communities to pull together and find solutions. That is really positive but, on the flipside, when I visit islands, I often hear concerns that other stakeholders that are incorporated into the way that islands operate perhaps put up barriers to prevent innovative ideas from coming from islanders. What can the Scottish Government and the islands team do to help to reduce that?