Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. That is all, convener.

Good morning to the panel. In particular, as Mr Brown said, it is good to see Mr Bain.

My question relates to Prosper’s written evidence, but I would like to hear reflections from other panel members as well. Mr Williams, in that evidence, you said:

“Many respondents reported challenges due to differing implementation of the TCA by EU states or authorities. Some of these appeared to be due to a lack of understanding of the rules. There was a perception among some respondents that some states or authorities were being more deliberately unhelpful.”

I would like further details on what particular states you were referring to, how unhelpful they were and what motivations were behind that. Do the other witnesses have any reflections on that evidence?

Thank you for that answer. You mentioned that some of the issues have been progressed and that there has been work to resolve them. Prosper also laid out six key actions that required work, and I note from the evidence that Prosper has welcomed

“the positive progress in relation to some of these actions.”

A number of points are solely for the UK Government, industry and regulators.

A couple of points related to the Scottish and UK Governments, as well as to industry. One was about working with industry to capture and act on trade frictions, tasking Government overseas offices with resolving trade frictions and sharing examples of successful actions. Another was about engaging positively with the EU on policy development and impact, scaling up Scotland House Brussels’s engagement with EU institutions and Scottish industry stakeholders and facilitating a programme of regular policy missions from Scotland to EU institutions. What specific actions can and should the Scottish Government be taking, what progress has been made on those key action points and what has resulted in practice?

Do Catherine McWilliam or the other panel members have any thoughts on actions that the Scottish Government could be taking to improve these matters?

This morning, we have heard that sales from Northern Ireland to Great Britain are up, and—I think that Mr Kelly said this—that the Northern Irish economy is 6 per cent larger in comparison with 1 per cent larger for the UK as a whole over recent years. We have heard about the benefits of unique dual market access, but we have also heard that that is not a panacea and that there are additional costs. There are also concerns about problems facing the Scottish economy and the wider GB economy.

We have been looking at a number of issues with regard to potential changes in relation to closer alignment, veterinary agreements and mutual recognition of professional standards. We just heard about the example of veterinary medicines, on which an agreement needs to be negotiated at UK-EU level.

On the issue of reviewing the TCA and the potential for closer alignment, I appreciate that, in Northern Ireland, there are always political views on these matters one way or the other. Nevertheless, are there any measures on which GB is looking to negotiate a trade and co-operation agreement or closer alignment with the EU that would be met with resistance from businesses or the economy in Northern Ireland because they would potentially dilute those unique benefits from the dual market access that Northern Ireland currently has?

Thank you. That is really helpful. Do any other witnesses have thoughts on that?

Good morning. We have discussed extensively how difficult the situation is, its impact, the need for change and how difficult negotiations can be. We have heard support both today and previously for a veterinary agreement being sought as soon as possible, as a matter of urgency. That makes a lot of sense, but we have also heard from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation that it could not support a veterinary agreement because the TCA is so harmful to the UK’s fishing rights. How can the committee balance those different views? Are these just unavoidable trade-offs?

I do not know whether Scott Walker or Fiona Burnett have anything to add.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for your testimony. We have heard loud and clear that the situation is costing you money and time. I have heard many businesses say that time is also money, so there is a double hit there.

I want to pick up on what Gary Stephenson said earlier—that the best thing that could happen would be mutual recognition and a veterinary agreement. We have heard testimony from Quality Meat Scotland about the fact that 15 per cent of shipments to the EU have to be checked, compared with 2 per cent of shipments to the EU from New Zealand, for example. I am interested in getting wider thoughts on whether agreement on that would be the best thing that could happen.

In addition, is there a trade-off between the easier exports and imports that mutual recognition and a veterinary agreement would bring and the costs that would be associated with greater alignment? Will you tell me a bit more about that, and about the effect on the ability to diverge?

Good morning to the panel and thank you for your report. I particularly note what you said about the contrast and the key differences between the Conservative Government’s approach and that of a potential future Labour Government to veterinary standards, mutual recognition of conformity assessments, professional qualifications, more flexible labour, mobility arrangements for short-term trips and UK association with EU programmes. I also note what you said in your report and again this morning about the significant challenges in making changes and the potential political costs. As a starting point, to what extent are those differences and that contrast understood in European capitals?

You have made the point that the EU would have to trust that future UK Governments, which could be far more Eurosceptic, will uphold such agreements. What can be done to address those concerns?