Chamber and committees

Good morning. You have all talked about the challenges and opportunities that are appearing because of the framework. Having the Executive back in function will certainly help the process, but when we have had discussions with individuals from different sectors, we have been told about added costs because of wages, staffing, bureaucracy and employing new people.

Stuart Anderson talked about the impact on small companies—the majority of companies are small—and the level of growth, which means that there is a reduced number of opportunities in some ways. We have heard that some businesses have not managed to survive because of the additional burdens. Is that still the case now that the Executive is up and running and doing things, or are there opportunities to negotiate and discuss what can be achieved now that the Executive is trying to support Northern Ireland in this process?

Stephen Kelly, we have heard that extra burdens are being placed on the manufacturing sector. Trying to manage that will be, and already is, a big challenge. You have no doubt seen some companies that have not survived the process and others that have found new opportunities. It would be good if you could give us a flavour of how it all works.

Nichola Mallon, can you give a flavour of what you see? As I said, we need to consider the logistics of putting things together. You have already touched on the potential issue relating to ferries. Do other sectors face the same potential problems coming down the road with visas, staffing and the logistics of moving people and commodities around?

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?