Chamber and committees

I thank our witnesses and my committee members. It is obvious that the session has opened a number of areas in which further discussion might be helpful, one of which—for me—is about understanding the scope and number of memorandums of understanding that are in place and have been mentioned, at country and city level. We might write to you for some further information, and I will ask my committee members to reflect on the questions that we did not quite get to today. As Martin Johnson said, it is the first time that any committee has looked at these issues, and I am sure that it will not be the last. It has been a fantastic evidence session and I thank you all for your attendance.

This is the committee’s final meeting in 2021. I thank our clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre and other members of the Parliament’s team who have supported the committee since we came back for this parliamentary session. I wish you all a very safe and happy festive period.

I am sure that you would. We have a question from Donald Cameron—very quickly, please.

Please give succinct answers, if possible.

Good morning and a very warm welcome to the 14th meeting in 2021 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. This is our first virtual committee meeting in this session of Parliament.

We have two agenda items this morning. Item 1 is our inquiry into the United Kingdom internal market. Joining us is Jonnie Hall, director of policy at NFU Scotland. Good morning, Mr Hall, and thank you very much for your written submission to the committee.

We will move straight to questions. I will open with a question about the history and development of NFU Scotland’s involvement in the internal market. In your submission, you emphasise how important it is to the NFUS to have the option of divergence to meet the needs of individual nations and to protect particular aspects of farming, but you also see the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination as a threat to that opportunity. So that we can understand the history, what involvement did the NFUS have in the development of policies before the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was introduced, and at what point did you start to see the opportunity to diverge in particular areas becoming a problem?

I am looking for someone to self-nominate to come in on that question.

Yes, I can see lots of potential issues. I emphasise that those are potential issues; I am not suggesting that they are particular risks at this time.

I see the Scottish Government very much taking a pragmatic approach in terms of leaving the common agricultural policy. We have a period of stability in which we have retained many elements of CAP but are now developing a future policy through an agriculture bill, which will come to the Scottish Parliament in 2023. That will implement the Scottish Government’s proposal of about 50 per cent of support payments being conditional on meeting outcomes around biodiversity, the climate and so on. We are 100 per cent behind that. We would welcome that very different pace of and managed change. Other parts of the UK are doing their own thing as well.

You mentioned alignment with the EU. The EU is also going through a process of agricultural policy reform right now. The EU operates on a seven-year cycle and it is just completing another round of CAP reforms. If we were just to pick up and paste into Scotland the EU’s current agricultural policy, that would be extremely detrimental to Scotland. That would stretch agricultural businesses to breaking point, in many senses, it would not be reflective of what we need in Scotland in terms of underpinning active farming and crofting to deliver the outcomes that we want, and it would not particularly suit Scottish circumstances, not least in the west coast of Scotland, where we have much more extensive agricultural systems on large holdings.

If that approach to keep pace with Europe was proposed, I would say to the Scottish Government, “Yes, we hear what you are saying about keeping alignment and keeping pace with Europe, but on that particular one, you need to be doing something that is far more bespoke to Scotland’s needs and you need to be sticking to a track that you have already set out to achieve.” If we simply duplicated the new CAP and imposed that on Scotland, I could see that being very detrimental to Scottish interests. I am not just talking Scottish agricultural interests; I am talking about Scotland’s interests.

Would England be unable to export to Europe if it uses glyphosate?

We seem to have all exhausted our thoughts on the issue. I again thank Mr Hall for his submission and his attendance.

Item 2 is to take evidence in the committee’s inquiry into the Scottish Government’s international work. I am delighted to welcome from the Scottish Government Martin Johnson, EU director, Brussels office; Dr Alexandra Stein, head of Berlin office; and John Webster, head of London office. I thank you all for providing a submission prior to today’s session, and I invite Mr Johnson to make a brief opening statement.

Thank you very much for those introductory remarks.

I will open the questioning; we will move to questions from other members of the committee shortly. I remind members that, if they have a particular order in which they want the witnesses to respond, they should say that when they ask their question.

Your written submission mentions that the international offices are

“grounded in Scotland’s National Performance Framework”.

I would like you to elaborate on that, and particularly on how that ties in with the Scottish Government’s cultural priorities, which are another aspect of the committee’s work.