Chamber and committees

Thank you—that was very useful. Does that focus carry through to the concordats that are established between those sub-state regions and countries and the EU? What are the most successful features of those concordats? Perhaps we could go back to Mr Salamone.

Are there any examples of third countries or sub-states that have been particularly successful in aligning their strategic priorities with the institutional cycle?

Thank you for sharing that news with us. Obviously, it is in its very early days. As institutions, civil society organisations or European citizens that scrutinise the process, how can we engage with it practically? Will there be full access to papers that are being brought up to the PPA for scrutiny? Will there be full disclosure and full transparency, and what might that look like? What mechanisms are you used to implementing in your foreign affairs committee? What kind of culture of openness and transparency might we expect for the PPA? What might that look like when it comes to sharing the information that is presented to the elected representatives on both sides but that perhaps is not available to citizens or those who scrutinise the process from afar, as we in Holyrood do?

Thank you.

Good morning. Where are we at the moment in the EU institutional cycle? How are third countries, but also countries that are sub-states that are part of third countries, engaging with that institutional cycle process at the moment? What are the strategic areas? How are such countries engaging with those? I would like to start with Mr Salamone.

Good morning, Mr McAllister. It is nice that you are in front of the committee.

I want to ask you about transparency, particularly in relation to the parliamentary partnership assembly. What expectations do MEPs have about how open and transparent the workings of that assembly will be? I am thinking in particular about the long-established rights that we have as European citizens to be part of open policy making and in relation to the business of policy making and scrutiny being open and democratic. What demands will MEPs make on how accessible the workings of that assembly will be? What will be the implications for European citizens?

I welcome the broad intention of the instrument, particularly given the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and the commitments that were made around methane reduction, and also the need to improve the ecological condition of our fresh water resources.

My slight concern with the instrument is about the choice of cut-off point for transitional arrangements. Larger farms will have to move quickly in dealing with slurry in a more responsible way but, for smaller farms, there will be a delay. There will be a transitional period of up to five years, with the regulations not really taking effect until 2027. That leaves us just three years before we are meant to meet the 30 per cent methane reduction target.

I do not object to what we have before us, but I would like to find out more information from the Scottish Government about where it drew the line in allowing smaller farms to adapt over a much longer period. More information would be useful to understand the Scottish Government’s thinking on the matter, and to understand which trade bodies and others the lobbying came from.

Is there any potential threat from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, or will we move towards alignment of regulations across the UK? Are any industry sectors or players still holding out for a market for drinking straws or anything else?

I will stay with Mr Leheny. Looking forward, do you see trade barriers going up across Europe and Ireland and the UK, or do you see them going down? We had evidence that suggested that, for example, a common veterinary area might be created, which would help with transportation of animals across Europe and the regulations associated with that. That would be outside and inside the European Union. What picture do you see going forward?

We are also concerned about the domestic regulatory agenda. We have the protocol on one side and the internal market act on the other. How is that affecting the discussion of domestic legislation at Stormont? Is there a nervousness about innovating? For example, we have had a discussion in Scotland about banning the sale of peat products. Is there a concern that any kind of innovation from Stormont might be caught between alignment with the EU and potentially falling foul of the internal market act?