³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

In leaving the EU, we have obviously lost access to a number of groups and forums that we were part of previously. When I gave evidence to the committee on the joint fisheries statement, I highlighted that. Marine Scotland science is a leader in Europe, through the work that it undertakes in marine labs, but there is no doubt that we suffer from not having the same links and access as we had before.

I go back to the point that I made previously about stakeholders. The new approach does not change how we develop policy, because we will still engage with stakeholders in the normal way.

Another example of a loss of the access that we had in the EU relates to the European Food Safety Authority. The loss of access to the EFSA has had implications for us and has meant that, in GB, we have had to put in place an entirely new process, which involves the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland and which has added extra complexity for the businesses that have to adhere to different processes. I hope that those examples are helpful.

This relates to my previous example. The Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland have had to be involved in the new process. That is one specific example. I do not know whether officials have more examples that it would be useful to highlight. I would be happy to follow that up with the committee and to provide more detail of the wider implications of losing access to that scientific advice.

Most frameworks do, but animal health and welfare is one area where the common framework is broader, because of the issues that we are dealing with. As I highlighted in an earlier response, animal health issues do not respect borders.

We have a strong history of collaboration, which the committee will have seen from the existing decision-making forums that are listed in the framework and from our ways of working. It is important—and a very positive development—that we consider such policy areas in the round with regard to how we collaborate.

That is fine.

Yes, I have concerns about that.

It has not been yet. All the different Parliaments have been undertaking their own scrutiny processes, but, once we have been through all of that and the scrutiny is complete, we will look to engage, to see what changes to the frameworks process will be needed. The evidence that the committee has taken and the scrutiny that you have provided have been important in enabling us to see areas in the frameworks that could be improved.

I know that stakeholder engagement was an issue that came out strongly in all the evidence, and I mentioned the House of Lords report in the context of how we could better engage. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about stakeholder engagement. However, we need to strike a fine balance, because the different Governments need space for free and frank discussion.

It is important to highlight that the common frameworks process does not, and is not intended to, replace the stakeholder engagement that we currently undertake as part of policy development. We will still engage with stakeholders as we normally do, whether we are bringing forward legislative proposals or developing policy. I emphasise that we are not replacing stakeholder engagement, which is still a vital part of how we develop policy. The common frameworks process is another mechanism that sits alongside that.

Common frameworks are about collaboration on the basis that we are working together as equals. They offer a positive way of working. Provided that everyone adheres to the process, they can be a positive way forward.

I do not know whether officials want to come in on that point, in particular. I suppose that that goes back to what we discussed earlier. In some ways, existing structures are being built on. I am sure that George Burgess or Euan Page will be able to say more about what that means for their own workloads. On the whole, it is positive that there are ways that we can collaborate.

On the point about the transparency of the process, I know that those who provided evidence to the committee highlighted concerns, and I understand and recognise the stakeholder concerns about transparency. We are keen to get the committee’s feedback on what the scrutiny process could be like. We have set out how the frameworks that we currently have will be monitored and reviewed. We want to hear from the committee about ways in which we could improve the relaying of information and make that process more transparent. We are happy to consider any suggestions that result from the committee’s scrutiny.

On the reporting mechanisms that we currently have, the committee will be aware that we publish the draft communiqués from our interministerial group meetings. We also provide updates after those meetings on some of the areas that we have been working on or that we have been looking to discuss. Again, I am more than happy to take away any particular comments or suggestions once the committee has finished its scrutiny.

Absolutely, because, as much as we have an exclusions process, that threat still remains. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is another example. All the concerns that we raised throughout the bill’s passage—particularly in relation to agriculture, which we felt should not have been part of that regime in the first place—have been completely ignored. That example has also been used. It is really frustrating and worrying that, as much as we commit to the process, there are pieces of legislation that are a threat not only to that process but to devolution.