Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our second agenda item is to take evidence as part of our inquiry to feed into the consultation on the UK Government’s review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

Before I introduce our witnesses, I should state that there is an active court case that is relevant to the committee’s inquiry—Biffa Waste Services Ltd v the Scottish ministers. Given that the case is currently active, we have sought the Presiding Officer’s permission to be able to refer to the deposit return scheme exclusion process today. The Presiding Officer has permitted discussion of the policy issues in order to enable scrutiny, while indicating that we should avoid direct comment on the specifics of the active case. Any reference to the matter should be made within those parameters, and direct discussion of the active court case is to be avoided.

I welcome our first panel. Marc Strathie is senior policy adviser for devolved nations at the Institute of Directors Scotland, and Mags Simpson is deputy director of policy at the Confederation of British Industry Scotland. We are also joined online by David Thomson, who is the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation Scotland. I extend a warm welcome to you all.

I will ask an opening question. The committee has previously recognised that there are significant challenges in managing the tension that exists in any internal market between open trade and regulatory divergence. What are your views on the impact of that tension on businesses? What opportunity does the review of UKIMA provide to address that tension?

We will go first to Ms Simpson.

Thank you. I will bring in Marc Strathie next.

Going back to the answer that you gave to Alexander Stewart, David, I note that transparency is an issue that we find very frustrating as a parliamentary committee. Such processes are done through the common frameworks and mainly involve civil servants, and there is not an opportunity to ask UK ministers about decisions that are made in Scotland. I am a bit concerned about what you said regarding the common frameworks. I understand that they were designed with stakeholder engagement in mind and that industry experts or professional experts were to be involved in the common frameworks that were relevant to their areas. However, from what you said, it sounds as if that is not greatly understood and you do not know how such experts are chosen. Is that the case?

I have a final question about the significant differences between how the UK internal market and the EU market operate, specifically in the areas of subsidiarity and proportionality, which govern the exercise of EU competences but are not included in UKIMA. Do you have any views on including subsidiarity and proportionality tests in UKIMA as part of the review?

That is always helpful, thank you. I move to questions from committee members.

Thank you. I will go back to my second question. The committee’s report on our internal market act inquiry was published in 2022. Our view was that

“it would be regrettable if one of the consequences of the UK leaving the EU is any dilution in the regulatory autonomy and opportunities for policy innovation which has been one of the successes of devolution”

which has been one of the successes of devolution here, in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

Three years on from that, do you think there has been a dilution in policy innovation as a consequence of the UKIMA and the difficulties that have been alluded to already?

Cabinet secretary, it would be helpful if you wrote to the committee about that, and we can share it with Mr Bibby.

Only if you are representing the witnesses’ contribution.

I want to ask a supplementary question on the issue, just before I bring Mr Kerr back in. The most recent trade figures have shown that the food and drinks industry’s exports to Europe have reduced by two thirds since the implementation of Brexit. The industry feels that that is partly because the Europeans are not subject to the same pressures as our producers, because of the lack of border controls. If the border controls were implemented, do you think that there would be an industry swell lobbying the EU side of these negotiations to have a better deal, given that those producers would feel the same pressures that have resulted in two thirds of our trade being lost?

Good morning and welcome to the 10th meeting in 2025 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. We have apologies from George Adam and Keith Brown. We welcome back Jackie Dunbar. Alexander Stewart, our deputy convener, is attending stage 2 proceedings of the Housing (Scotland) Bill at another committee; he will join us if parliamentary business allows.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Do we agree to take item 3 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Our second item is our final evidence-taking session on the second phase of our inquiry into the review of the European Union-United Kingdom trade and co-operation agreement. Our witnesses are Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture; and, from the Scottish Government, Elliot Robertson, head of EU secretariat, external affairs; Rachel Sutherland, deputy director of population and migration; and Dr Frank Möschler, head of research, Scottish Government EU office, who joins us from Brussels. I give a warm welcome to you all.

I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement.