Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Dr Melo Araujo, do you have any comments on that?

In many of the answers, our witnesses have touched on some of the questions that I was going to ask about interparliamentary scrutiny. Is there anything that you would like to add on that? We have a written submission from the Institute for Government that suggests having policy-specific chairs forums to mirror interministerial groups. Could that work for the circular economy or other areas where there are frameworks? I do not know whether the panellists have any more thoughts on what that architecture of scrutiny might look like.

As it seems that Professor Hunt and Professor McEwen have nothing to add, I will move on.

Your written submissions make a strong point about the potential chilling effect on innovation in regulation and on new policies. Is there any evidence of that happening already? Some policies are in train. This week in the Scottish Parliament, we have dealt with single-use plastic regulations, which have come to a committee for the first time. Is there any sense of where policy development is being stifled?

My final question is about our move away from EU policy development processes. I was struck by how involved various stakeholders—including industry bodies, unions and non-governmental organisations—were in the development of the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation. There has now been a shift; we are out of Europe, and there is perhaps a different policy development process. Which voices will be heard in that process? Where do those voices come in? How should Parliaments engage with those stakeholders?