Chamber and committees

It was good to read your submissions in advance of our discussion. Two core areas have come up today. One is about the funds that are spent on international development—whether it is the international development fund, the climate justice fund or the small grants fund, which has been lost—and the other is the issue of the need for a more cross-cutting approach across Government policy. I have two questions. How do we get more value from the existing finance through the international development fund and the climate justice fund, and how do we measure that value? Secondly, what do witnesses think about the small grants fund?

I was very interested in the paper that was submitted in advance of today’s meeting, particularly where the request was made for our views as a committee. For me, the issue is how you assist parliamentary scrutiny and support us in that, because there are big issues for stakeholders and businesses with the transparency impact on markets, as has been mentioned. Where there is a strong desire to raise standards and support innovation on issues such as animal welfare and food quality in response to consumer demands, or maybe to set higher standards in order to meet climate change targets, particularly in the light of COP26 and the UK’s leadership on that, what kind of advice would you give and what transparency would you be able to support to enable us to do our work in terms of looking at regulations and Government policies on those sorts of issues? I am not sure who that is best directed to, so maybe the witnesses could volunteer.

I was looking for a final thought on how you communicate with stakeholders in Scotland. You have mentioned that Covid has been a challenge, but on another level it has made everybody digitally connected. Can you see opportunities for that communication to be more effective?

Thanks. That is very useful.

Mr Johnson, how do you make that sharing of access to information effective in a way that would be useful for stakeholders in Scotland and in other parts of the UK?

I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning. It has been really useful.

I would like to follow up on an issue that we have been discussing for the past few weeks in our inquiry. We have heard a lot of evidence in recent weeks about how to enable scrutiny of the keeping pace legislation, alongside how to retain links across the EU. In the evidence that we received in a very good session last week, there was quite a focus on intergovernmental and interparliamentary contacts. A key issue that came out is that, in order to track what is happening, we need to keep an eye on European legislation, and about 1,000 pieces of legislation come out of Europe every year.

I will start with Mr Johnson. Can you reflect on what has changed in how you operate? How do you intend to communicate what is happening in Europe so that our businesses, civic community, parliamentarians and the Government can see what EU legislation is coming down the tracks in a way that would inform the discussion about where we want to keep pace, where we do not want to keep pace and what the implications are of that legislation. Can you assist us with that process of keeping pace around information, transparency and knowledge?

An issue that came up last week was the need for better relationships in the UK offices that are based in different parts of the EU. How can we make better use of existing links, given the very significant changes that have taken place? Perhaps Mr Webster or Mr Johnson is best placed to answer that.

What comes across very strongly is that you need the common frameworks but, at a basic level, it is about getting meetings going on things such as the agriculture framework. Your evidence is very clear and helpful.

Yes, they were very helpful.

My question was about how you work out what is most significant, given that there might be business interests, for example. We think that some things that are important have not come through an initial tracking—that is one of the things that we are asking the cabinet secretary to look at. However, I was thinking about your role, as people who have contacts that you have developed over the years.

Dr Stein, you are in the Berlin office. How does it feel from your perspective? It was interesting to hear at last week’s meeting the perspective on some of this of a German MEP, David McAllister, who is chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs. To what extent do we track stuff in different offices, and to what extent does information come through the Brussels office? What is your role and the role of officers like you across the EU?

Thank you, Mr Hall, for your written paper, which is very useful. I want to follow on from the comments that you have just made. In your written submission, you said that you see a major challenge in how things are developing, and that you think that common frameworks would be

“a more effective alternative to manage divergence, whilst respecting devolution, and so enable the UK Internal Market to operate without friction or distortion.”

Can you say a bit about the collective discussions that you have had on the farming side across the four nations of the UK, and what discussions you have had with the different Governments to get your view across?

Have you been able to have discussions with ministers to get that point across? The key point that comes across very strongly in your written evidence is that the approach will undermine agricultural support, the environment, animal welfare standards and food production. You say you that are nervous about dispute resolution. What is the reality without common frameworks and without ministers bringing people together and negotiating?