Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, Mr Layden. I have a number of questions to go through with you. Two organisations that responded to the committee’s consultation—Missing People and the Law Society of Scotland—have said that the bill could have done more to address the needs of families when people go missing. In what ways did you consider that group during the development of the policy proposals, and can you highlight any parts of the bill that you think will improve the situation for such families?

Yes, thank you.

The Charity Law Association has said:

“the Bill pays little regard to the role of judicial factors in the charity sector”.

How would you respond to those concerns, and can you highlight the parts of the bill that you think show that the charitable sector has not been overlooked in that regard?

There is an exception to the requirement to comply with the information-gathering powers under sections 12 and 39 that would enable United Kingdom Government ministers, their departments and bodies that are exercising reserved functions, such as HM Revenue and Customs, to choose whether to comply. It may be for the Scottish Government to answer, but can you explain the rationale for that exception? What policy impact would that have in practice?

Good morning, convener. I am delighted to be here. I have no relevant information to give to the committee at this stage.

Good morning. You have all touched on the complexities that you have had to deal with, which, as you have indicated, are mainly logistical or bureaucratic. You have also said that managing those complexities has been a burden on your businesses. My question is about how you are coping with or managing that burden. In previous sessions, we have asked witnesses about how they are managing to keep track of the changes that are happening in the EU and the impact on the various sectors. I know that all of you will probably say that the situation has led to added costs, and you might well have had to take on new people to deal with the new rules and regulations. That financial cost has had a knock-on effect on your own bottom line and what you are trying to achieve and, as a result, you might have lost commercial opportunities.

You have all explained that situation, but I think that it would be useful to get a flavour of the burden on your sectors. I know that it is a burden in financial terms, but managing the situation will be a people burden, too. How have you coped with the new regulations? Have you been able to manage things with the staff that you have, or have you had to increase numbers to deal with things on a day-to-day basis and wade through the logistical and bureaucratic issues? It would be good to get a flavour of that from each of you.

I thank the witnesses for their honesty—it has been good to get that flavour. You have all adapted or stopped doing things not only because of the pain that you have mentioned but because of the loss that you would suffer, and you are trying to keep track of changes to EU legislation to continue to adapt. You talked about bringing in a new member of staff to tackle that.

As organisations, have you managed the situation by bringing in an expert so that you get a much better and freer flow in relation to what is happening and so that you understand the legislation? In the past, I think that you have just tried something and it has failed, but you have to take that risk. However, it is about managing the risk for the future and seeing what you can achieve. It would be good to get a flavour of what you see coming in the future, based on what you have seen in the past.

Does anyone want to jump in?

You have said that the two sides seem to have more success in coming to an agreement when there is a little bit of a lighter touch in the dialogue, rather than the formal objections and obligations, because they are much more strained at times. The lighter touch seems to work for both sides and we manage to get a better understanding or even a slightly better process out of all that. Having other individuals in the room who have a role to play—the diplomats and others that you indicated—rather than just the politicians, seems to have more success. Do you see that as being one of the major features going forward?

Thanks for the comments so far. As you have identified, this review gives us a chance to take stock of where we are, the deadlines that are coming up, some of the processes and the whole idea of governance and enhanced co-operation. Elements need to be looked at and could be expanded, but if that is to happen, there needs to be agreement once again about structures and commitments. That agreement could be quite limited in some respects, but it could be quite wide-ranging in others.

Jannike Wachowiak, you talked about dates and timescales around the elections and the time that it takes to make things happen. Once again, there will be a gap between where we are and what will eventually become the norm from 2025 onwards, in reality. Things might be slightly different to how they are now in many respects, depending on the political will and the level of involvement.

It would be quite good to get a flavour from you of whether you see there being barriers to enhanced governance or co-operation in the future or whether there will be some opportunities? I do not mind who answers first.

You talked about the friction that has occurred. There has continued to be friction in the sector. There has even been a call to arms in the agriculture sector to stand up and shout the case. There have been demonstrations and protests, and all that has put the sector into a slightly different vein with regard to managing and engaging with policy makers or decision makers. That has been challenging for you, but you have also wanted to be heard, and it is important that you are.

You have outlined the challenges that you all face and the difference between where you are now compared to where you were or might have been. There was huge speculation at the beginning about where we would go and what would happen.

Your organisations have been tremendously resilient as you have managed that potential crisis and averted some of the other crises that might have happened during the process. My feeling from what you have said today is that we are in a slightly better place than where we could have been, but that we are still nowhere near where we want to be, and that we are trying to balance that.

From what QMS has said, it seems that larger organisations managed to be more resilient but smaller ones were captured in the crossfire of it all. Has change now started to materialise or have we lost the small people completely? Have they managed to survive, or have they been taken over by other organisations? It would be useful to hear how the sector is working.

Mr Hall spoke about the potential decimation of farming. We know that the future of the soft fruit and vegetables sector presents major issues. What measures are still required to ensure that inroads continue to be made and that the sector can thrive? We all want that to happen; we do not want to hear that those crops are not being processed or picked. We need to find solutions to those problems. It would be good to get a flavour of your views on that.