Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am talking not just about issues on which you have decided to use legislation but issues on which you have decided to use other methods or have decided explicitly not to use legislation or to act in that way.

—because, as well as enabling you to draw on that expertise, that would address the issue of transparency, the importance of which came across strongly in the evidence to us.

I apologise for that; I misread the evidence.

I welcome the witnesses to the meeting and thank them for their submissions. It has been really interesting to work through them.

I want to follow up Donald Cameron’s questions about different impacts across the UK, and to come back to the peat issue that Vhairi Tollan raised. Such matters are certainly at the forefront of our minds, given that we are in coming to the end of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties, or COP26. In your submission, you say that

“The UKIM Act could pose challenges for Scotland’s ambition to implement a ban on the sale of peat for horticulture in this parliamentary session”,

although you have just said that that might or might not be the case. What interaction have you had on that policy issue with the Scottish and UK Governments, and to what extent have you been able to talk to parliamentarians in both Parliaments in order to start that conversation?

To pick that up, but also to move sideways, I will ask Alison Douglas and David Thomson about the challenge that you both highlighted with regard to sale of alcohol products. There is a very striking statistic in the evidence about alcohol-specific death rates, which are 68 per cent higher for men and 78 per cent higher for women in Scotland that they are in England and Wales. There is obviously a big issue about responsible alcohol drinking. What discussions have you had with both Governments? Certain products that are made in Scotland are part of our core economy, but there is also a discussion to be had about responsible drinking and getting the balance right. On the basis that public health is a devolved issue, I am interested in hearing, first from David Thomson, about discussions and engagement that you have had with both Governments. There is a debate in Scotland and a strong ambition to address that issue.

I am quite keen for the operation of that group and its relevance to us to be part of our scrutiny, too. Thank you, Mr Clancy.

Thank you—that was very useful. I am particularly interested in the parliamentary and joint ministerial work. A tension arises around transparency when Governments talk together, but I note that there has been no JMC for three years now and the structure has not been replaced with anything else. That is an issue to think about, and I thank you for your evidence on that.

I also note the point made by both Jess Sargeant and the Food and Drink Federation Scotland about the ability of local officials to act on food standards, for example. In a previous answer, Ms Sargeant, you talked about local authorities being able to make decisions on food standards. Can you say a little bit more about that, given that the Food and Drink Federation thought that such a move would be disruptive? Are you suggesting that, even though decisions on food and drink standards—you mentioned chlorinated chicken in that respect—would be made at UK Government level, it would technically be possible for action to be taken at the local level? We had assumed that that might not be the case.

Thanks for your excellent submissions; they have been helpful.

Michael Clancy, can you say more on the question that we asked about scrutiny, transparency and accountability challenges and how we, as a parliamentary committee, can engage in that area? You have explained the sheer number of potential legislative changes that we might be facing. Could you talk about the capacity of third sector and business organisations to give their views on the process for those changes?

Earlier, we heard that it is difficult for third sector organisations to cope with the scale of change that might take place. That is an issue for this committee, because the parliamentary process enables us to get views from third sector organisations. The issue of timing is important in that regard. Given the time constraints that we face and the sheer complexity of the situation, how can we improve how we take evidence? What would be your top issues? Would the issues of interparliamentary or intergovernmental work be at the top of your agenda?

Thanks. It would be really interesting to pick up on that.

I have a quick supplementary question to ask David Thomson. You talked about different standards in different parts of the UK impacting negatively on producers. Towards the end of your written submission, you state:

“If one UK nation increased or lowered product standards in their own jurisdiction there might be areas where enhanced protection might, in principle, be desired.”

What did you mean by that?