 Good morning and a very warm welcome to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in 2022. Our first agenda item today is inquiry into Scottish Government's international work. This will be the committee's fourth panel on the topic and this morning the committee will hear from Mark Majeski Anderson, director of research and innovation Glasgow Caledonian University, David Hope-Jones, OBE, chief executive of Scotland-Malawi partnership and Lewis Ryder-Jones, deputy chief executive of Scotland's international development alliance. I welcome you all to the meeting and thank you very much for providing the committee with your written submissions ahead of today. I will move straight to questions and I wonder if I might open with a question to Mr Ryder-Jones. In your submissions you state that the Scottish Parliament was scrutinised the Scottish Government's external affairs spending using a policy coherence for sustainable development approach. I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit further and are there examples of that in action elsewhere? Sure. Good morning, committee. Thank you for having me this morning. My organisation has been focused on looking into how to achieve policy coherence for sustainable development for a number of years now. It has become apparent that much of the work that is done by the Scottish Government outwith the international development fund is an important part of our global footprint, whether in climate terms, environmental terms or in human impact terms. Because the international development fund is as limited in size as it is by comparisons of other such funds in other countries around the world, the coherence factors become much more important to ensure that we get value for money for what we spend on international development. Coherence issues can delve into any other policy area domestically that can potentially consider the different elements of the ripple effects of decisions and actions that take place here in Scotland. That can include our trade and business activity. It can include, of course, our climate plans and our ambitions for net zero. It can also include Scottish Government spending on procurement and the supply chains that are involved in that. When it comes to policy coherence solutions, it is still our view that there is much work to be done. One of the most important parts from the perspective of those who work in this across the OECD, other international organisations and the UN, where the SDGs have a specific policy coherence target, is that it takes systems to be put in place by the institutions that provide scrutiny to ensure that coherences at least recognised or incoherences and trade-offs are recognised at political level. One example would be that the committee is looking at external affairs, yet perhaps it should be the remit of other committees to include the international impact of domestic issues, whether it is rural affairs, climate or otherwise, in order to ensure that those kinds of trade-offs and policy coherence issues are considered. That is the first step. Beyond that, there are lots of more systemic parts to how to improve coherence in the Scottish context. The Parliament has a critical role to play to ensure that we do not end up working in silos. When we talk about coherence, it is not about necessarily finding the perfect solution. It is a journey that we all go on to improve the efficiency on one hand value for money but also the impact that we have in sustainable development terms across economic, social and environmental issues. I put it back to the Parliament to say that without genuine sustainable development impact assessment tools such as the tool developed by SPICE during the last Parliament being rolled out across all committees, the Parliament cannot take on its scrutiny role properly to ensure that value for money is achieved across any area of policy when it comes to international impact. We know that the low-income countries of the world are very dependent on the outcomes in both trade and climate action of a rich country such as Scotland, both in historical terms and in present day. Thank you. I am going to move two questions from members in it. I can ask Vecna Sir Golden. Thank you, convener. I think that this is a question for the whole panel, but perhaps start with Lewis Rider-Jones, if that is okay. In previous evidence, we heard from Oxfam that Scotland's credibility on climate justice is now in significant jeopardy, and those are Oxfam's words due to missing three successive annual emissions targets. I would just wonder what the panel's view is with respect to this topic and we will move to Lewis Rider-Jones first. On one level, the commitment coming out of COP26 to have a loss and damage fund created as part of the climate justice fund within the Scottish Government's climate justice funding structure was a big move forward. As we know that this was lauded internationally as an important step forward for recognising what climate justice is, it is about loss and damage. It is about recognising that Scotland's own climate action does not sit in isolation from the impacts, particularly on low-income countries and, more importantly, the historic impact of those actions. The domestic targets on climate action are vital for that, but what is more important when it comes to the international climate justice element is that we take further action and the Government should be lauded for their decision to increase the climate justice fund and implement a loss and damage part to that. I do not think that we can separate the two, I agree, but the action must be happening on multiple directions in order to make progress here. Can we move to Mr Mayevsky Anderson and then to Mr Hope-Jones, please? Yes, good morning. Thank you for inviting me here. Glasgow Caledonia University has a centre for climate justice that carries out research, not just in the ODA-compliant countries but across the world and particularly in Scotland. I reiterate what has already been said, but I would also add to that that the level of funding is one thing, but also the way it is directed. I urge ministers always to consider the research that is being carried out and to use the knowledge that we have developed in this area to ensure that there is a real impact in the field when it is being carried out. That is both at a local and international level. Thank you, Mr Hope-Jones. Thank you very much for the invitation to be a part of the conversation this morning. There is nothing I would disagree in what Lewis and Mark have already said, and probably not a huge amount that I could add to the question. I certainly support everything that has been said on policy coherence, and I think that this is a very helpful and pertinent example of that. When the President of Malawi was in Scotland for COP26 in November, he was not only the head of state of that country, he was also leading the LDC bloc, the least of our country's bloc, and chairing SADIC, the Southern African Development Community. He used that platform and his voice to talk very passionately about where the richer countries, where the global north, are continuing to let down the global south. What has been pledged is not being met. Ten years ago, the $100 billion to support the transition to green economies in the global south is still not being met this year or next year, and possibly might be met the year afterwards. It is very important to ensure that our actions are living up to our words. That is as important in mitigation as it is in adaptation. I think that it is hugely important for Scotland to have a credible voice, for any country to have a credible voice in this area, that they are taking positive steps and that they are meeting their targets. I think that there are very good examples of positive steps that the Scottish Government has made in recent months and in recent years in this direction, but that is no reason to take the foot off the pedal. It is important, with all humility, to be aware of where we have missed as well as where we have hit targets and for us to recognise that we have a weaker voice where we have not met our pledges and our targets to date. My question is a broad one to all the witnesses in terms of the Scottish Government's international office network, which is predominantly in the EU and in North America. I wonder whether the witnesses think that we are, as a country, in the right place, in the right locations. We have nowhere, for instance, in Australia or New Zealand, nowhere in South America, and I just wonder if the witnesses had observations on that. I asked that question, noting of course the long-standing commitment to Malawi, but I would be fascinated to know what our witnesses thought about the location of our international effort. If I could start with David Hope-Jones, please. It is a good question, and I should contextualise my answer by the chief executive of the Scotland Malawi partnership. It is perhaps unsurprising that that is my focus. I do think that it would strengthen the Scottish Government's work to look at the option of having a footprint on the ground in Malawi, but it is not an easy thing and it needs to be done right. The Scottish Government is to be commended for the fact that since 2012 it has co-funded our sister network in Malawi, the equally unimaginatively named Malawi Scotland partnership. It is the same as we do at that site. It co-ordinate, represent and support the many civic links between Malawi and Scotland. Again, I applaud successive Scottish Governments for respecting the independence and autonomy and the value of engaging civic society in that way. There is opportunity for the Scottish Government to meaningfully have a footprint and a small office in Malawi, but it should not blur the distinction between the governmental and the non-governmental. It should not disempower what is already there as a Malawi-led civic enterprise co-ordinating the Malawi and the civic side, nor should it confuse or complicate the fact that the Government of Malawi of course determines policy in Malawi for that side. However, the fundamental relationship between Scotland and Malawi is not one of necessarily big numbers or corporate entities, it is of friendships, it is of human understanding, it is of dignified partnership. Being able to have a civil servant or two in Malawi to develop those long-term relationships with the Government of Malawi and with civic society in Malawi, I think probably would help things, but it would be a very different approach to what is happening in Washington and elsewhere. It is not about trying to have Scotland's influence, it is not necessarily about building trading relationships, but it is about depth of understanding and strength of relationship. The answer to that question from the perspective of the organisation that I work from is unsurprisingly that countries that you mentioned in your question do not factor into the thinking of the organisations that I represent. Our membership contains around 200 organisations working across about 100 countries. Almost all of those are what we would term global south countries. UN determined low to lower middle-income countries, predominantly in the global south. I think that that will then frame the answer that I am about to give you. The reality is that Scotland's economic development over the centuries has benefited and exploited global inequalities from the slave trade era onwards. We must recognise that and be honest with ourselves about what we want from our international relationships as a small sub-state actor. I firmly believe—I think that this is reflected in the views of our member organisations across the world—that solidarity with the world's most marginalised is more important than anything else at a time when we know that global inequalities are rising and the challenges that we face as a planet are getting worse. Without a reduction in those global inequalities, without understanding, as David Hope Jones said, the identities and cultures of the people in those parts of the world that we perhaps do not gain from in an economic sense, I do not believe that we can make genuine progress with action. If there were to be more offices across the world from a Government perspective, and I firmly agree that that is a very different thing to having civil society actors within those settings, I firmly believe that we would be in a better position to consider investing more in the areas of the world that are currently considered lower to middle income, where progress can be made in understanding and cultural ties can be extended and increased. That said, I do not believe that that should necessarily be a Government office, and I think that civil society investment is a much more powerful expression of that kind of development. Thank you. Finally, Professor Mark Mefsi-Anderson. I echo Lewis's last point. I think that there is a real tension between depth and breadth of international relations, and I think that there is someone who would argue that the whole question of prioritising certain regions and then neglecting others is not desirable, but, on the other hand, it is not practical if you want a real depth of relationship. The solution to that is to use civil society organisations and universities to help in terms of gaining a footprint within the different countries across the world. Our university has extensive networks within Latin America, not just with universities but with Governments and Civic Society organisations. I urge the Scottish Government to use those organisations to map where we have a presence within countries and what that presence looks like and to take advantage of it to ensure that we have more of a foothold and to be able to make an informed decision about how much potential for investment there may be in the future. I think that the rhetoric is very often about Scottish Government helping to facilitate international engagement, and I think that we could split that and talk about how universities might help Scottish Government to engage more deeply with countries in other regions. Thank you. Could I make questions from Dr Rowan, please? Thank you very much. Returning to the issue of policy coherence and what we all understand that to mean, I know that we have talked or I think many people in the Parliament and the Government and elsewhere have talked in the past about trying to mainstream an interest and involvement in the kind of work that the international development department and the Government is doing across all parts of the Government and the public sector. I might ask David Hope-Jones first where he thinks that we have reached on that agenda, whether it is in terms of practical things such as how we distribute surplus equipment or how we involve different areas of Government in the enterprise, or more broadly, of awareness in different parts of Government in the public sector of the importance of working in Malawi and elsewhere. I wonder if I could go first of all to David Hope-Jones for a take on that and then to Lewis Ryder-Jones, please. Thank you very much, Dr Rowan. As I said, we stand behind the concept of policy coherence for development. There are very helpful examples in the relationship between Scotland and Malawi to that effect. You look at what Scottish Water has done with Malawi, the Scottish Police Forces, and the health side of things that has done with Malawi. I think that the reason that Scotland-Malawi bilateral relationship is particularly fertile ground for the cross-cutting links with Malawi is the extent of civic support and civic buy-in. Very often when you look at why that has happened and why it has developed, it is often not for some sort of top-down strategic reason, but it is because sometimes the officials or the politicians, the Government ministers involved have their own connections and interests in Malawi. Maybe they have been to Malawi, maybe they have seen the impact, maybe their mum's church link or their child's school link has exposed them to it. They begin to think, what are the opportunities in my workplace to be able to be involved? It has grown up quite organically, rather than strategically, and I do not mean that in any way as a criticism. Certainly what we are seeing is a range of different interactions between Scotland and Malawi across a broad number of different areas within the Scottish Government, but also across civic society and across Parliament. Our mission as the national network is to try to bring together the sort of myriad different links that have organically grown to be able to offer maximum strategic impact by ensuring that they are building on the learning of others and making a meaningful contribution to the plans and priorities of the Government of Malawi. There certainly are a good number of cross-cutting examples. I would encourage more and encourage other areas within the Scottish Government to look at what can be done. There is an essential job while they are organically developed to try and co-ordinate to bring together and have a single touch point then with Malawi to ensure that we are really listening to those priorities from Malawi. Lewis Wader-Jones, are you able to say anything from the Government point of view? Are you able to evidence some of that activity? Those two parts of the question are not there. How do we define it and also are there examples of activity? To be frank, I do not think that transfers of equipment from the NHS is policy coherence. That is not defined as an action. It is perhaps part of the beyond aid agenda as defined by the Scottish Government, but those two are separate things. When we talk about policy coherence from the perspective of the research that we have been doing over the last few years, we are talking about something very unsexy, uninteresting and boring. It is about process and it is an uncomfortable process for ministers and Government officials. What it is about is recognising where we could perhaps act in our own self-interest or in the interest of others. It is about accepting that sometimes that self-interest has to come first in order to represent the constituents that a particular MSP might represent. I would give an example, perhaps subsidising a particular company that might have a negative international impact. I remember reading relatively recently about one such company in Fife. The reality is that choosing domestic jobs over international impact is part of an uncomfortable conversation that processes around policy coherence would force us into. That is where we come from when we talk about policy coherence. My example of hospital equipment was not meant to cover the whole breadth of policy coherence, but you make a very fair point. I suppose that what I am driving at is that there are other parts of Government. Are they becoming more aware of the very important issues that you have just mentioned? Is it possible to ensure that those ideas are not completely curled within your own department, as far as I am driving at? I think that that remains the biggest challenge of all that. It is inherently difficult to stop silo thinking within any department of government. It is natural and, in many ways, I do not think that we have made enough progress. We are coming to the end of the early stages of some research and advance of what we hope will be a wellbeing and sustainable development bill coming to Parliament that was in the SNP manifesto along with others, also in this year's programme for government, not in the legislative programme, I might add, so we do not expect it this year. However, that piece of legislation and the research that we are driving to try and influence that legislation is trying to give us a basic understanding of where other departments have got to with their journey to policy coherence. Unfortunately, the reality is right now that it is quite low. The examples are, two years ago, I worked on a document called outcomes-based policy making that was in creation with an EU-funded project called bridge 47. The national performance framework team in the Scottish executive supported the creation of this document to try and improve the understanding of how the national performance framework outcomes can be seen through holistic policy coherence lens. As far as I understand it, that document and toolkit is not widely used within government. Those are examples of where, if we want genuine action on policy coherence, we must find a way to ensure that the civil servants supporting policy making and the ministers in charge are using that lens to make progress. The other example might be the ministerial working group on policy coherence. We were really glad to see that that kicked off last year and we understand that that will continue. That conversation that can take place within the ministerial setup in order to talk through those trade-offs and incoherencies is a big part of it, but it is not the only part. Those are cogs in a bigger machine that we must try to ensure that they are systematically undertaken. David Hope-Jones, on how our understanding of climate justice in Malawi has developed post-COP and also post the review that there has been of international development policy in Scotland. That might be something that Lewis Ryder-Jones wants to come back on to as well. Yes, absolutely. The first point that I would make is that climate change and the climate crisis are not an abstract proposition in Malawi. It is not something that can be debated. It is that the reality of life rains arriving later. Generally, they are harder to predict when they arrive. They are much harder. The lake level is going up and down. For a country that is overwhelmingly subsistence farmers, those changes have a real material humanitarian impact. We are speaking today in what Malawi calls its hungry season. It is very important that we discuss those things and recognise the immediate human impact of what we are talking about. That concept of climate justice of those countries that are suffering the most, like Malawi, is hugely relevant in Malawi. Fewer than 10 per cent of Malawians have access to grid electricity. The overwhelming majority of electricity in Malawi is from renewable sources, hydro in the Shirey River, and yet this is a country potentially being destroyed by the climate crisis. That is why it is absolutely critical, as I said earlier on, to listen to President Chacwera and others about what they said throughout COP26. They were very clear that there needs to be a greater focus on justice and that promises and pledges cannot be re-announced year after year, decade after decade, without real and material progress. We can only be judged on what we have achieved in the past year, not what we have promised to do in the next 50 years or so. There are good steps being made and I am very much welcome that the Scottish Government's announcement that there was significantly increased, I think that triple the climate justice fund, I am very much welcome the announcement for the renewable centre of expertise. The position that we are in now is really trying to nail down what is behind those announcements. What does that mean, what does that look like? Critically, through this process, we need to be listening really well to our colleagues in Malawi. What do they need, what is most relevant and we need to take those big policy announcements out of the headlines and down to the details. It is listening to Malawi, I would argue, is the single most important thing that we need to do in the next few months. We need to ensure that by the time Scotland is represented in whatever form in COP 27, we have delivered against what we promised at COP 26, because, as has already been said, there is a credibility deficit if we don't. I can ask in that case for any comment on that from Lewis Ryder of Jones. I had the privilege a few years ago on behalf of the Government of Being in Malawi and certainly people spoke to me about the issues that David has just mentioned and the fact that they could see the climate landscape changing around them radically and dramatically. Although I do not think that anyone expects Scotland on its own to be able to put that right, I wonder if you could say something maybe a bit specifically about Malawi and how Scotland is working for what it is doing for climate justice issues there? My own organisation's interest goes much beyond Malawi, Dr Allen. If it is okay, I will give a broader answer to that question. For the organisations that work in the 100 or so countries that we represent, climate justice came out as a strong, if not the strongest driver for action on COP in any setting. We worked with organisations to try to understand what that meant through a collection of personal and human impact stories on what climate justice really means in different settings. The reality is that it means a lot of different things. It means social justice, it means gender justice, it means intergenerational justice and the reality is that in countless settings across the world globally we are failing and COP26 failed to deliver on climate justice. That is a sad reality. Yes, there was increases and a welcome commitment to loss and damage, but globally we are still far short of what needs to be done. Scotland is and has become a beacon of example on particularly loss and damage, but there are other areas that we can step up and join beyond fossil fuels as an example. The stories on climate justice that came out of our work pre-COP were wide and far. It was not just about damage from changing weather patterns, but it was also about risks to food supplies. It was about challenges for education outcomes and particularly impacting women and girls across global south countries. Those messages were what came out strongest for us in our work. Thanks, convener. I feel some of the comments about Malawi, particularly sobring from David. I was there in 2005 and you could see back then what the climate impacts were, particularly around the variability of rains and terrifying what things might look like in the years ahead. David, you raised in your submission about the small grants programme, and I think one thing that stuck in my mind when I went to the country was just the impact of those CBOs as community-based organisations doing a lot of work with very small amounts of money. You said here that the small grants programme that was stopped by the Scottish Government was a misstat and you pointed to some of the difficulties around evaluation of that scheme. Can you say a bit more about that? How do you think that evaluation of small grant schemes can be proved? Obviously, public money and accounting for public money for development work is really important, so how can we continue to do that kind of work but also build confidence that the money is going to the right places and it is actually achieving objectives? Yeah, absolutely. Thanks very much. I think that the small grants programme is probably one of the best bits of what the Scottish Government has achieved through its international development programme over the past 16, 17 years or so. It is important to emphasise as others have already done that the scale of the total package from Scotland, even with the decision to decrease from 0.7 to 0.5 per cent of GNI south of the border, is still about 1,000 times smaller in Scotland. That is not a criticism of Scotland because it is additional to and hence all the more meaningful. Even within that pot, small grants programme is a very small component. It has always been under half a million, under 500,000. However, what they have looked to try and do with that pot historically is to not say what can we do with a single project of that amount of about 500,000, but rather what have we thought differently? What have we thought innovatively about how do we support perhaps a dozen or two dozen different projects, long-standing, smaller projects, that will be able to work with Malawi, with much smaller quantities of money? By doing that, it was able to engage a very different section of civic society, both in Scotland and in Malawi. Certainly, my experience of seeing first hand on the ground the impact of some of those small grants was remarkable. This is absolutely nowhere a coded criticism to larger organisations and more structural approaches, which are equally important. However, I was astonished at the value for impact that you can see on the ground for what incredibly small, relatively small quantities of money were achieving through principally volunteer-run organisations. The small grants programme was particularly well thought through in that it looked to not just deliver project grants, but also capacity-building grants and grants that allowed organisations to say, look, we have a great idea, but we just need to put a bit of research and a bit of thought, we need to put time into listening to our colleagues and counterparts in Malawi to develop this idea before we start the doing. What really made the small grants programme such a success was the management style of the Cora Foundation, which I think did a fantastic job, again with remarkably little money. To a huge degree, your success in this space is determined by your values and your approach. The Cora Foundation has always been very clear that it has a supportive and empathetic approach. It has helped those smaller organisations to be able to apply for funds. It has recognised that if a small volunteer-run organisation does not have a staff member who is well versed in all the language that they should put into application forms, beyond the forms that they picked up the phone and spent an hour, maybe an hour and a half for each applicant, just talking to them about it and listening to them and their Malawian partners, understanding what was proposed and working with them through the life of the grant to ensure that it was a success. I expressed my reservations from the outset in the way that the review of the small grants programme was set up. If you look at the terms of reference of that review, it says that it should not consider the impact that projects have had. I completely agree with what you said, Mark. That is taxpayers' money and, absolutely, it must be led by evidence. I do not see how you can review the success of a programme without looking at the success of projects within it. In fact, the terms of reference do not necessarily require the contractor to even look at whether the programme's objectives had succeeded. The criticism that the end report had was that there was not clear evidence of the success against the objectives of the programme, but it was very clear that that was because of the way that the objectives were written at the beginning. It was not necessarily due to any failure of the programme, but it is hard to measure because of the way that the wording was when it was first set out. I look at the rest of the international grant programme and I am not convinced that all the other units have easily measurable objectives. That is probably a fair point where improvements can be made. I do not think that that is a reason to have cancelled the small grants programme. In fact, if you look at the recommendations of that report, the recommendation with the grace of the number of reasons to support it, the most bullet points of saying that this is a good idea, was to keep the small grants programme. The decision that was made to cancel it actually had the fewest number of points recommending it and the most number of reservations. I do slightly raise an eyebrow at a case being made that that report showed that there was not demonstrable empirical value from the small grants programme. I do not think that it does, and certainly my experience of working with those organisations, both who have been successful and even those who are unsuccessful in their applications with the small grants programme, the sector here speaks with one voice that, actually, this was a uniquely supportive, fantastic programme with a remarkable return on investment. It was a manifesto commitment in the last Parliament that that small grants programme would be continued. I stand by our words in the submission that we do see it as a policy misstep that it was cancelled despite that manifesto commitment. Lewis, on a different topic, I will go back to policy coherence. You were quite, so you diplomatically talked about the company in Fife. You talked about Raytheon and the camp management that Scottish Enterprise supplied for that arms company. Do you think that there are significant policy coherence issues that still exist? We have talked about successes, not talked about perhaps where there are some real tensions. You are working on the sustainable wellbeing bill that is coming forward and you have been inputting into that. Do you see a role for a future generations commission in providing some of the governance on sustainable development going forward? That is one for Lewis. The reality is that, when it comes to policy coherence, without proper systems in place across Government, across Parliament and across other public bodies, it is difficult to ensure that examples of incoherencies become less frequent. Without systems in place, the frequency of incoherencies will continue as it currently is and there is a potential that those things will come up more often. That is part of the rationale for why we have called for a wellbeing sustainable development bill. There are examples of where we have not yet chosen to see things through that lens and that could lead to potential problems, the most current of which was perhaps the Good Food Nation bill. That bill has the power to be something quite all-encompassing if seen through a lens beyond the remit of the particular committee that is working on it. I know that the Scottish Food Coalition recently submitted evidence to that committee suggesting such an approach. A Good Food Nation bill must, by definition, include the impacts of how food is produced and grown in other parts of the world, what are the impacts on the livelihoods of those growers and farmers across the world, what is the climate impact and the environmental impact of food production and waste as a result. The remit of such a bill, if it was being scrutinised at this stage by multiple different angles, could perhaps extend to those issues and give us a potential chance to limit the incoherence or trade-off that might come as a result of putting a Good Food Nation bill through Parliament. That is one current example. There are always going to be examples, both large and small. The business pledge that came about to give a very small example is not widely used. We know that the business pledge has all the right intention. However, if we had just included an international aspect to that business pledge, we might have captured some other businesses that do particular actions and have a remit out with the Borders of Scotland to perhaps consider how they function in relation to the social, economic and environmental outcomes elsewhere. That is a couple of examples for you. When it comes to the future generations commissioner aspect of a wellbeing sustainable development bill, part of the research that we have done is to look at the Welsh experience. Obviously, there is our future generations commissioner in Wales. One of the criticisms of that commissioner is that it lacks teeth. The commissioner does not have the powers to hold the Government accountable or to force changes in directions. A future generations commissioner is welcomed as part of such a bill, but only if the mechanisms for accountability exist and the duties can be legally enforced by said commissioner. Legislation that looks at wellbeing sustainable development must have an international dimension. By definition, sustainable development is global, not domestic. It includes all of us everywhere and everything. However, if a future generation commissioner is put through and money is invested, we would probably say that it would not have value unless the legislation that links to that commissioner has the teeth and the power to hold the Government accountable. Mark Ruskell, you mentioned in your submission about the need to support new EU-based foundations. Do you have particular examples of where, even though we have left the EU, there are still policy areas where we can and should be focusing in on and developing new initiatives or looking to join existing EU foundations that can be working outside of the EU? Yes, I think that part of the rationale that I had when I made my submission, and we have been doing a lot of work within the university looking at the feasibility of that, is actually setting up foundations that are based in Europe but have an international favour, but come from Scottish University, Scottish organisations, so that they have a footprint there and can work from there and benefit, obviously, from European funding, which is important. If you look across Spain, there are many organisations that, in one way or other, are helping civic society organisations to access European funding for areas such as climate change and working intrinsically with universities, but working independently. They benefit from the European funding, but they also benefit as taking a consultancy role, especially if they have international networks. It seems like a model to me that we should at least be exploring as a way of helping us to continue to engage with Europe and to continue to engage with our partners within Europe. There are small examples, for example, Strathclyde has a research centre that, post Brexit, has turned into a foundation within the Netherlands in Delft, but it is very specific on European policy. However, that model can be extrapolated in various forms across Europe and during the due diligence of the best location. I do not mean just to engage with other European partners, but, as we know, European funding works across the world. GCU benefited enormously, but it also helped partners in Latin America, Southeast Asia and South Africa to benefit from European funding. We were acting as agencies for that funding. If we look at what is happening to funding in the UK now, with GCRF, the Global Challenges Research Fund and my colleagues were talking about valuation and everything, that kind of funding was fantastic for evaluating those projects. GCRF has now been suspended by the UK Government. The British Council is losing funding. Those are the kinds of funds that allow us to have influence across the world, and there are very small amounts of funding that help us to engage. On the one hand, I would say that we need to look at that funding at a Scottish level, but I see the development of European foundations and European presence as a way of helping us to continue to use European funding to help us with small projects like that. I am interested if I can first ask David Hope-Jones, but others may wish to comment on that as well. In your evidence, you said that there was a distinctively Scottish approach to international development, so I wondered if you could expand on that perhaps with a few examples from your Malawi experiences. Thank you. Thanks very much indeed. It is important that, for an inquiry like this, the committee takes us up a big picture. That means, with all humility, looking at it from a historical and existential constitutional viewpoint, why does the Scottish Government do international development? The case that I would make is that Scotland as a nation has developed something quite distinctive in its approach to progressive internationalism, particularly as expressed in the bilateral relationship with Malawi. 17 years ago, the Scottish Executive as was, as First Minister, Lord McColl, went out to Malawi. He fell in love with Malawi as countless Scots had done before and since. He was struck by the scale of civic links that he saw across Malawi. He was amazed that he could go across Malawi and reliably, the people that he would meet would be banging on about Scotland and about their church link and their schooling, their university link, the charities that they were involved in. I was working to Lord McColl about that. He was genuinely bold. He came back and he started speaking to people in Scotland. He saw the same glimmer, that spark in people's eyes, that enthusiasm that was there for working with Malawi. His sense was that that was quite distinctive from the sadly dominant paradigm of the day of an international development industry that was based at that point, more on an assumption that we in the global north have the answers for the global south, that what works in Madagascar can be unproblematically transplanted to work in Malawi that was not particularly interested in listening to people on the ground in a meaningful way. The business case that was made at that point constitutionally was that there was a useful value ad that Scotland and the Scottish Government could make in supporting those civic links to be able to achieve something quite distinctive. It never set out to emulate or replicate what the UK Government was doing with DFID now, FCDO. There is a real danger that if we lose that self-awareness, if we lose that big picture, if we lose that humility, we try to spread the jam too thinly. Inevitably, for practical reasons, that would mean sacrificing the principle, foundations on which all of this is built. Key among those principles, I would say, would be dignified partnership, real meaningful human partnerships and a recognition of the value that all of civic society can have. The bilateral relationship between Scotland and Malawi isn't limited to it. It's not even defined by the governmental relationship that the president of Malawi said exactly that speaking at our AGM in the autumn. He commended the Scottish Government for recognising that the bilateral relationship was far more than that. It was those 1200 civic links, those 109,000 Scots, 208,000 Malawians working together and dignified human partnership, and the constructive synergy between the governmental, the parliamentary and the civic society. That's what's so extraordinary. Every single one of the 129 MSPs has civic links in their constituencies. That means that there's that whole party political support that encourages the Scottish Government, that applauds the Scottish Government when they work in this space, and that support feeds back to civic society. You have a virtuous circle there of a national effort between Scotland and Malawi, which is remarkable. Every pound that the Scottish Government puts into the Malawi partnership more than £200 comes from Scottish civic society. There's no other country in the world that can say that. That's something exciting and special. My encouragement to the committee is to encourage the Scottish Government to not lose sight of those principles that were foundational at the start of the process of the journey 17 years ago. It is to be immense credit of successive Scottish Governments, but particularly the current Scottish Government for the increase in the scale of the international development programme from 3 to 4 to 9 to 10 now to 15 million in the life of this Parliament. Even at that level, it's comparable with the island of Jersey's international development programme. We can't kid on that this is a world-changing quantity of money, however good it is. My encouragement would be to focus on that distinctive approach that values civic mobilisation in countries, that has dignified partnership at its heart, that is able to support good governance through the constructive synergy between the non-governmental, the governmental and Parliament, and is based on a reciprocal approach. I'm afraid that our meeting today is too short for me to go through a great many examples, but what I would say is that perhaps I could just give a hyperlink to a single document that has 1,200 different examples disaggregated by every Holyrood constituency, showing hundreds of schools, hundreds of churches, all the universities in Scotland, half the local authorities, a great many businesses all working in this way, underpinned by mutual respect and human solidarity. There's something very special there. I think that while we grow the scale of what's happening at the governmental level, which is fantastic, let's not lose the principal foundations on which this is being built. Thank you very much, David. I was smiled at your comment about people to people conversations, because people are people the world over, and I think that that's where we have to recognise. I'm looking forward to visiting open high school in the near future, which is in my constituency. Lewis, have you got any thoughts on and comments that you'd like to make about a distinctively Scottish approach and not following the not being able, I suppose, given the size of the funding available, the more defined route that we expect from perhaps Difford or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I would echo what David has said. Primarily on the value and distinctiveness of the civil society and, as you just mentioned, people-to-people connections that are created out of Scotland with people elsewhere, I would add that that's not limited to Malawi. If the same assessment was done and it's sadly not yet been done and it's something that we plan to do across other countries, not just the four partner countries that the Scottish Government has, but beyond that, in all continents of the world, we'll find that those people-to-people connections are even more vibrant than 1,200 connections, and that needs to be celebrated, emphasised and invested in. We must be up front and frank about the direction that the UK Government has taken laterally with its own international engagement post-Brexit and what is defined as global Britain and what that means and what Scotland can do to work with, but also to prove that there is potentially an alternative path in terms of international engagement. It is clear that the funds available for the Government are limited, but that does not mean that examples cannot be set across a range of areas that might be scaled up. However, I agree that civil society and our members are proof of that, too. They operate in people-to-people relationships from all sizes and types of organisations across a range of different sectors, not just the NGO world. However, there are examples of the recent decision on loss and damage funding that are not going to make a massive difference to the global significance of loss and damage funding when it comes to climate, but the fact that we can be a beacon of hope to use the language, the rhetoric and start a process, other sub-state actors, other regions—the Jersey example or others around the world—may get behind and then suddenly you can scale something up. I think that it is important to recognise the potential that a country like Scotland has to be a world leader on particular issues, the way in which we structure our funding and the themes that we approach, whether it is supporting LGBTQI communities across the world, whether it is supporting women and girls in new ways. As I know, the minister has recently announced an equality fund that will do just that. I think that those are positive steps, and I think that they should be lauded as examples of the distinctive approach, as well. I think that we have lost connection to Miss Minto. Sorry, Jenny, we lost your connection there. You have got me back. Can I just say that we are really trying now so that if we could have succinct answers, that would be really helpful to Miss Minto. Great. I was just saying that I was at a couple of COP fringe events. I am not sure if you can hear me. There was a comment about the cost of doing nothing is more than the cost of doing something. I wonder whether you could expand on your statement where you have asked for supporting calls for cancellation of all external debt payments. Lewis, if you could expand on that, please. That is a really good example of where the powers of the Parliament and the Scottish Government, unfortunately, do not allow us to support this in any other meaningful way other than rhetoric. We saw what the First Minister was able to do by using rhetoric at a COP that was UK Government-led in order to change narratives and support new ways of thinking. When it comes to the cancellation of debt and debt that you believe more widely, there is not broad consensus, and most of the powerful nations of the world do not get on board. It takes leadership from small, sub-state, significant actors such as Scotland to be able to change that narrative. It takes policy statements, it takes repeated public statements on particular issues to be able to make progress on them and lead by example. Sadly, other than the informal pressure that can be put on the UK Government through Scottish Government channels, there is not much more that the Scottish Government can do at this stage. However, it is encouraged by our members across the piece that such supporting statements can be made by the Scottish Government. To the witnesses, it is very good to read your submissions in advance of our discussion today. It feels like there are two core areas that have come up. One is about the funds that are spent on international development, whether it is the international development fund, the climate justice fund and then the loss of the small grants fund, and then the issue about a much more cross-cutting approach right across government policy. I have two questions, convener. Firstly, to ask the witnesses about how we get more value and how we measure that value from the existing finance through the international development fund and the climate justice fund and what witnesses think about the small grants fund. I was thinking of first going to David Oak Jones answer that question. Thank you very much for following the convenience steering. I will try to be as brief as I can be. In our submission, we say a few different things, but probably the one that I would pick out in brevity is transparency and accountability. 10 million in the grant scheme of things is not huge amount, but 15 million is fantastic. However, we still need to have really tight systems to ensure that we are getting maximum value for that. Historically, there was a call for applications every year. Almost everything had a competitive process that was clear and transparent. I could say to our members, do not apply this year and develop the concept, apply in 12 months' time. I cannot do that now because there might be a call in five years' time, but it depends on the whim of the day. There is not the predictability, the transparency and the accountability. Almost everything, other than the core funding for organisations that have gone on for 15 or 17 years, should be competitively tendered for, because that is what builds confidence and builds awareness. I am worried that an outcome of the review is that, while there is a principle that says transparency and accountability, the different strands of grant making, none of them require the Scottish Government to have a transparent process. It is hugely important that it is predictable, transparent and accountable. Following that, I think that you will get best value for money. Lewis Rider Jones, you also talked about the importance of the value that comes from our international development funds and how we actually make the most of that. Do you want to say a bit more on that issue? I can very quickly echo the comments on transparency and the need for organisations that may or may not want to apply for grant funding through those funds to have the transparency and ability to plan for those grants. I echo what David Scott said in that regard. However, beyond the transparency issue, what has been striking at a parliamentary level over the years is that, when international development funding has been debated in the chamber or otherwise, there has not been the level of understanding of what that money has been spent on across the Parliament and, therefore, scrutiny has potentially been missing as well. It has often been a very positive conversation on the successful relationship building that that funding has come about, less so on the impact of projects across the partner countries. I would propose that the Parliament has a role to play to ensure that value for money is well and to ensure that meaningful debate is had on that spend. One other point that I would make is that the international development fund should not be seen in isolation and it goes back to that policy coherent. We cannot see value for money unless we see it as connected to everything else that is going on in the Scottish context. The Parliament has a role to ensure that value. Thank you very much. That takes me on to my second question. One thing that has come through from all three witnesses is the importance of that broader approach, the sustainable development approach and the joined-up approach. From all the witnesses that we have heard, I would like a little bit more about how we get that change in other Government spending and other Government policy that delivers and sustainable development that feeds into international development ambitions that we have, not just the £15 million, but how we get the rest of the Scottish Government's money playing a positive part. I may start off with Mark Mouise-Gianderson from Glasgow Caledonian, because you talked a bit at the start about how you deliver on the ground. Just to think through for the further and higher education sector what sustainable development means in an international development context. I think that there are two areas. I have been wanting to come in for some time to mention those, because when we are talking about policy coherence and higher education, we have a real opportunity in two areas. One is that we have talked a lot about evaluation and impact. I think that our researchers in a variety of areas are well positioned to be able to do this and have been doing this for many years through different strands of funding. This is a way of increasing the added value of what we are doing. We are increasing our research and our research and our knowledge base, but also being able to demonstrate impact. There is an increasing amount of what we termed academics who are not just academics but who are also working on the ground and helping to facilitate improvements as well as measurements. The second area that I would say is crucial and I think that there is a lot more that we can do is student mobility. As we know, we have now lost the Erasmus grant, which was great for European mobility but also for mobility of students across the world. We have lost that and it has been replaced by Turing, which is one direction only. In other words, it helps our students to travel to other places. What we have completely lost and which adds value is the idea of giving opportunities for mobility to the new generation coming out of the developing world where they are able to benefit from our education systems but then return to their own countries. Far less of us coming in and helping the countries but really planting the seeds to be able to develop further. If we are talking about the way to make money go further, I think that we should really invest in student research and mobility to be able for students from different countries around the world to benefit from the Scottish education system. By the way, that is probably in terms of our international renown. The HE sector in Scotland is probably without equal across the world in terms of per capita, so I think that that is something that we can really invest into. Thanks very much, that is really useful. Lewis Ryder-Jones, to move on to that wider issue, you have talked about other areas where the Scottish Government could act in terms of the wellbeing and sustainable development agenda. You have mentioned issues like public procurement, public policy and leadership and business practice. Could you give us a sense of what the Scottish Government can do in its other money, not just the money on international development and using public bodies and agencies to make a positive impact on sustainable development, climate development and climate justice? At its heart, that is about creating global citizens of Scotland. Without increasing awareness among the general public of how their actions impact the social, environmental and economic outcomes of people elsewhere, we cannot make genuine progress on that. A big part of legislation must include an element of upskilling both of the civil servants, parliamentarians and the wider public on how our actions impact. We cannot, if we ever could, decouple our own actions from what happens elsewhere. Whether it is a procurement plan for a particular public body or expansion plan for a particular business, we must have a starting point where we are aware of what types of questions we need to ask ourselves to ensure that we are making those decisions based on all the information that we may have. A big part of legislation should be about upskilling and ensuring that the right questions are asked. That, sadly, means probably more work for people. We must be honest with ourselves about that, that it is not an easy process to achieve sustainable development and thinking about global impact. It makes what we do more difficult, but it is important that we are at a point and global point in history where, if we do not make things more difficult for ourselves in that regard, we will fail the future generations that are yet to join us on this planet. It is as simple as that. We must accept that our jobs are going to be more difficult. David Hope-Jones, in your evidence, you commented that the benefits to Malawi in additional investment is £49 million on top of what is presumably quite a small amount of primary money. Can you say a bit more about how that wider approach that Lewis has just talked about, about having a wider approach to sustainable development and changing other Scottish Government policies, would benefit people in Malawi? Absolutely. The multiplier effect that the Scottish Government has with its programme to Malawi is extraordinary. That is because of the energy and vibrancy of wider Scottish civic society. The critical point that I would make is joining up the governmental and the non-governmental is absolutely key. Scotland is a small nation against humility and self-awareness. We are not going to change the world, certainly not with the sort of quantities of money in the public person, but the way that we can box clever is to connect things up. I completely agree with what Mark was saying about higher education. This time, Monday, I was meeting with Vice-Princes and Vice-Chancellor of Dundee University, listening to him passionately talk about the desire for them to grow their works with Malawi. This time yesterday, I was listening to 12 different Malawi projects in the University of Strath Glide, looking at the impact that they are having despite the challenges of the Covid pandemic. The opportunities to connect up are absolutely huge, and that is how we will deliver far more as a country. My encouragement is to try to get out of the boxes and have better conversations between Government and civic society and to unleash the awesome force of all that enthusiasm and the expertise that we have. There is real willingness in those institutions and associations across Scotland. Thank you very much to our panel this morning. In some aspects of our discussion, I think that we have only just scratched the surface of what we could be looking into in much more detail, particularly struck by Mark's comments about the foundations and how we might develop working in Europe. We will hopefully be able to come back to those issues over the course of our inquiry. One of the first projects that I was aware of was Malawi Midwives being trained virtually at the Caledonian University of West of Scotland. That was a long number of years ago, and to see those projects in action really brings home to us how effective they can be. Huge thank you to you all this morning. I am going to suspend just for a moment to allow the panels to change over. I am not going to have a comfort break if that is okay with the committee and move to our next panel. Welcome back. Our next item is our committee's inquiry into the UK internal market. This will be the committee's fourth panel on this topic this morning. The committee will hear from Jonathan Scott, non-executive director and chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, Rachel Marielli, senior director of the Office of International Market and Sheila Scolby, director of the Office for Internal Market. I welcome you all to the meeting this morning and thank you very much for providing your written submission. We are going to move straight to questions. I remind my colleagues to put an R in the chat if they wish to ask a question. I can maybe open with a question. Mr Scott, can you please elaborate on the OIM's role in providing reports or advice on specific regulatory provisions on the request of an relevant national authority, particularly interested in the transparency of that work? Will the request of a national authority or any advice given by the public or the parliamentary committees or the parliamentary legislatures be informed of such advice? I will ask Rachel Marielli to deal with the detail of the question, but what I would like to get over is the importance of what we are trying to achieve at the OIM. We are going to give advice that is independent, impartial and evidence-based. That takes us back to what the competition of markets authority everyday activity is around. It is around understanding markets, how they operate and making that accessible. Making that accessible is probably the hand-over for me to Rachel. The Office for the Internal Market has two broad functions. One is a broad monitoring and reporting function, but the narrow one, which you are asking about specifically, is providing advice or reports on specific regulatory provisions either before they are made or after they have been made. The national authorities can come to us with a request for those reports or advice and can also ask us for advice on a regulatory provision that another national authority has made if they feel that might be detrimental to the internal market. I am going to move to questions from the committee and could invite first Mr Ruskell. I want to ask you about engagement and how you are engaging with different groups. With the European Union, there is a deep engagement at policy and implementation level, which stakeholders have been used to up to now. How are you engaging in particular with businesses, but also with other stakeholders as well as representing consumers, perhaps even regulators? What does that look like? What does the programme of work look like? How are you ensuring that your work is transparent and that you are able to take on the views and communicate effectively with those groups and stakeholders? If you could give us some detail on that, that would be most useful. I think that it is probably just right to put that in context, particularly before the committee of the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, we have now had an office for a number of years. Approximately 60 people will continue to rise. We have had a programme of engagement with the committees and much more widely. For example, we had a consultation on our annual plan at the beginning of this week with stakeholders from industry and consumer bodies. If I may, I will ask Sheila Scobie to give a little more detail, because she has led our office in Edinburgh since inception, but has now moved over to a director role in the OIM. Reflecting the point that you have made that it is absolutely critical if we are going to do this role well, that we engage widely. If I may, can I ask Sheila Scobie to flesh out a little bit what I have said? Yes, thanks, Jonathan. Hello, Mr Ruskell. I am very glad that you have asked this question, because it is really a key to what we are working on at the moment. It was a very strong message that we got in response to our consultation and our guidance last summer that a really important purpose for our first year should be about engaging with important stakeholders, building awareness, but most importantly, building trust in the OIM as an institution that can advise and help with what are quite complex and sensitive issues. We are building on our existing relationships. As Jonathan said, I have been the director and the DMA responsible for outreach in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for quite a number of years. We have a really strong network of contacts across the business community and with consumer bodies like Citizens Advice Scotland, which in Scotland are now increasingly developing a good relationship with the emergent consumer of Scotland. As part of our work to develop the OIM but also since launch, we have been leaching out to business organisations such as CBI, Federation Small Businesses and now increasingly some of the sectoral organisations, particularly in sectors that we think are likely to be most in scope, perhaps such as the food and drink sector, the environmental sector and others. Okay, so what does that actually practically look like? Can you give us a worked example for a round engagement on a particular issue that might be useful? Yes, certainly. We ran a number of business round tables around the guidance that we produced in the summer. We issued out for consultation and draft form very early days in our development of our design for the OIM. We are very keen to understand where businesses might be coming from and what would be helpful to them. One of the things that we had already identified that we needed to do was to provide an easily accessible platform for businesses and business organisations to come to the OIM with issues that they were experiencing. We now have that online web platform. We are working with the business organisations to expand the awareness of it and directing people. As Jonathan said, we have sent messages and emails out to people who have attended our various engagement events to encourage them to come forward with issues. We are also tapping into news and information and the things that the Parliament is doing and the sessions that you have been doing. We have been following those working very carefully to try to understand and test how much familiarity there is with our work and the best way of engaging. We want to plug into sectors that are most relevant. As we develop our understanding of what the evidence is telling us, we are running a business survey to help to inform our first report. That will help us to identify what the need is and what the best sorts of engagement will be going forward. Clearly, if there are ways that we can tap into existing forum or any ways that parliamentarians can put us in touch with relevant sectors and businesses, we would be very welcome to be on the back. I was watching the little video that introduces the role that is useful for consumers and others. You are talking about the health of the internal market. What do you define as that? What are the top health indicators? That is a very good question. We have been working closely with the Government, the analytical experts in the Government and people like Fraser Rallander and other academics in the Office of National Statistics to help us to understand what would be the right measures for defining what the health of the internal market would be. Effectively, we are looking at making sure that trade is effective across different parts of the UK. Any sort of subsequent issues that some sort of barriers to trade might create for competition, for innovation, perhaps for investment and then also, obviously, leading into what effects that might be for consumers in terms of prices and choice. Those are the sorts of things that we are very familiar with as an organisation with tracking. We do it probably at a macro level at the moment, but we do have the experience of dipping into sectors and getting a real sense of what is going on. We have the expertise, I would say, that we are still working on defining exactly what that evidence base will be going forward. We are looking for, as I say, support from others who are experts. Expert in what is quite a new and novel policy area, I would say, because we have not, in the UK, had much history of tracking the effectiveness of trade between different parts of the UK. That is something that we do quite effectively in the international context, but it is something that we are really keen to build up our expertise and become a centre of expertise in. I was going to ask you about where you see regulation in terms of driving the innovation that can create a healthy market, because clearly, as regulatory innovation comes in, businesses and industry have to think about how they adapt to that and that can create a lot of economic growth and innovation. Essentially, it is about creating a level playing field, but it is also about how to ensure that there is a space there for innovative regulation to drive that innovation market. Yes. Definitely, with our CMA hats on, we very much recognise that and that resonates with a lot of the other work that the CMA does looking into markets. If you look at some of the work that we have done on things such as heat networks, for example, we have been very proactive at encouraging Governments to think about how they can design those markets effectively. From an OIN perspective, it is not really for us to make decisions about what the most effective means is of designing policy and designing regulation. We can certainly assist with helping Governments to understand what the potential effects would be, and we can make suggestions as to how they can best design policies to deliver those wider public benefits, but bearing in mind the economic effects that I have mentioned, we are particularly expert in that, but we are not there to provide the expertise on those wider public benefits. That is very much for Governments to put into the mix that they make decisions about. Thank you. There is no more contributions. I will go back to you, convener. Thank you. Can I bring in Ms Boyack, please? Thanks very much, convener. I was very interested in the paper that we had submitted in advance of today's committee, particularly where the request was made to get our views as a committee. For me, the issue about how you assist parliamentary scrutiny and support us in that, because there are big issues for stakeholders and businesses, as has been already mentioned, with the transparency impact on markets. One of the things that I appreciate a comment on is where you have a strong desire to raise standards and support innovation on issues such as could be animal welfare and food quality in response to consumer demands or maybe in relation to higher standards to meet climate change targets, particularly in the light of COP26 and the UK leadership. What advice would you be giving and what transparency would you be able to support to enable us to do our work in terms of looking at regulations and looking at Government policies on those sort of issues? I am not sure who that is best marketed to as a question, convener, so maybe the witnesses could volunteer. If we go to Jonathan, I am sure that Mrs Scott will nominate someone if he is not. I think that I will let Rachel take that one if I may. Thank you. Yes, of course. I am very happy to pick that up and thank you for the question, Ms Boyack. Yes, I think that as Sheila was explaining, the expertise that we bring is to look at the economic impacts of any regulatory provisions. We are trying to gather data, we are trying to assess the technical impacts, the economic impacts of any proposed provisions, whether they are in climate change or animal welfare or any other space at the request of national authorities. It is important to say that the wider policy decisions are very much decisions for the Government. We are very happy, as Sheila was saying, to assist on this technical front but would not presume to do the balancing act of the wider political policy considerations and those more technical assessments. You asked about transparency. I probably should have picked that up more in my first response, too. We are wholly committed to being transparent. It is very important to us. I think that the CMA as a whole has a commitment to transparency. We publish a lot of reports and details of the work that we carry out. That same commitment to transparency is something that we carry across into the office of the internal market. The convener may have been asking a little bit previously, too, about the transparency that we might be able to give on early pieces of advice. We are working very closely with Governments to understand what they want, because the only areas where we are not required to be transparent are our section 34 pieces of advice, which are about regulatory provisions before they are passed or made. Our ambition is to be as transparent as possible, but there may be occasions where we are asked to comment on something that is not yet in the public domain. We need to be quite careful, and Governments would obviously want to have some protection. We would discuss with them what was appropriate to do on a case-by-case basis. I hope that that starts to answer your question. I was thinking about publishing advice to different Governments, because one of the things that has been apparent in devolution is Governments watching each other have different best practice. You could call it best practice of different standards. To what extent there is a scope for that cross-UK sharing of knowledge and information about markets, and whether you are up for doing that to publish advice to different Governments? Yes, very much so. That is our default setting, if you like, to publish our advice. We need to work closely with Governments to make sure that we are not putting something in the public domain too early. In general terms, we are very much committed to that sharing, and we are working closely with all four Governments to try to establish our ways of working. It is also important to say that those are very early days for us. We have not yet had a request for advice. Although we have been talking about those things on a theoretical basis, it is when we have to start dealing with requests that some of those issues come to light. We are able to push on the transparency side, as you are suggesting. From our experience, the discussions that we have had on internal markets and frameworks are a huge appetite from business community and stakeholders to have an advanced site of things. To adapt to change as much information and as much of a head up as possible is what people are after. That commitment to transparency, even in terms of Government advice, is something that we would be very keen to see. I will ask a supplementary question. In a situation that advice was given to the UK Government or to the Welsh Assembly, for instance, would the other Government have been made aware of that publication, even if it is not in the public domain? Would all Governments have been informed of what advice has been given and when and where? Those are issues that we are working through as we talk. Our default is very much to share with all four Governments. That is what we aim to do, but there may be occasions on specific cases where that is difficult to achieve. We really have to look at that on a case-by-case basis. I would like to return to the questions that Mr Ruskell was asking about engagement. I note that you have done an initial stakeholder survey and I wondered what key learnings you got out of that. I did notice that there was one about being even-handed, so I wondered if you could explain about that and expand a bit on that statement, Mr Scott. I am sorry, but I was not sure that it would come to me. I am going to let Sheila Deyla deal with the detail, but can I say a word or two on the even-handedness? That is so fundamental. If I may, I am going to go to the backer stage. For the CMA, we are an independent, non-governmental—I always get my terminology wrong here, but we are a non-ministerial Government department, but we are independent. That is absolutely at the heart of all the work that we do, whether it is in our mergers markets consumers. For us, questions of even-handedness and independence in the OIM, for me as chair, carry very real risk of contagion across to what we do in all our work. Even-handedness and independence has to be absolutely front and centre of what we do, what we are seen to do, what we are perceived to do. That is why we have gone down the structure that we recommended to the Government that we went down the structure that we did, which is the structure involving both the OIM being housed within the CMA but also the panel system. We will come back to that later, but that is, if you like, a further guarantee, I hope, of independence and even-handedness. However, to go to the survey results, I will let Sheila take that, if I may. Yes, certainly, Jonathan. I referred to the business survey, which we have been running through the autumn. It has not yet completed. We are still waiting for the final results, and we will then want to have a look at those and do a bit of analysis on those and present those in the most effective way. We are intending to do that as part of our report in the spring, which will be published and made available. That is where that is. On the even-handed point, to go a little further into the detail, there is a requirement in the legislation for us to act in an even-handed way. We are, as Jonathan said, taking that seriously, almost going beyond what we might normally do within the CMA. That would filter into some of the work that we do as discretionary. We have a choice to make us to which cases projects we take up, and it may be that we will embed that notion of even-handedness in deciding which projects and reports that we should fulfil. Also, just in terms of the analysis and use of evidence, it is sometimes difficult to get in comparative data across the different nations of the UK because you will probably be aware. Something that we really intend on doing is to improve the evidence space. We are very much doing that on the basis that we can make evidence-based decisions and beach conclusions that do not reflect what some people have told us as being the asymmetry between different parts of the UK. We will be very focused on trying to get that right. Also, just in the way that we communicate and engage with each of the four Administrations, making sure that we share information on an equal basis, that we deal with things on an equitable basis and that, as we were saying earlier, we make sure that, in our ways of working, we are working collectively and we are not having conversations with foreign governments and not having the same conversation with all four of them. We have learned quite a bit from the way that the common frameworks programme has been developed, and we are very much trying to work on the same collaborative basis with all four Administrations. I was struck when you said that—I do not mean to misquote you, but it was around the lines of that there is not currently much evidence gathered with regard to the levels of trade between the UK countries, as we stand just now. My question is, what is the baseline that we are going to compare to? Does that make sense? Reasonably good trade statistics for Scotland and for Wales, and for Northern Ireland, as you probably might expect. What we have less of is the trade statistics for England as a unit in itself. That is something that we work very closely with the ONS on, because that has been identified as something that is post-Brexit, which is definitely something that all Governments would find useful. I understand that there is a programme of activity to improve that, and we are certainly involved in that discussion, and so we have an analyst from all the other Administrations. It is quite important that we can do that at a macro level, but also down to a sexual level as well. As I said, when we did our consultation back in the summer, people were flagging to us as a challenge for us as a new institution. That is why we have prioritised the business survey and are working so closely with other analytical bodies. This is a first step. Over time, we would be expecting to use this data to help us to track what is happening and to identify the particular effects that are being seen to allow us to dig into those a bit more to see what particular policy interventions may be useful. That may be a bit of a specific question, but we took evidence in our last meeting about the possible impact of the subsidy control bill that it could have on agricultural policy in Scotland. I wonder how those kinds of things fall into your remit and how you are going to work with other legislation that may be brought in that, again, impacts on the internal market. Jonathan is happy that I will cover that question as well, because it is a very relevant question to ask at the moment why the subsidy control bill is going through the Westminster Parliament. We are very mindful that the CMA has a role in relation to the giving subsidy advice. That will be a separate unit within the CMA that we are starting to design and shape. It is probably too early for us to say with any detail how the two bits of legislation interact. They are two separate pieces of legislation coming from different places, as it were, but we do see the potential synergies, and I guess there are potentially risks and opportunities. In terms of the internal market act, there was no specific role set out for the OIM to look at subsidies or consider subsidies. We are not expecting to do that as part of our normal business. I am just interested in finding out what matrices you will be using to check whether the UK internal market is working well or efficiently or effectively. Clearly, there are economic business ones, but there are also the wellbeing, the health and, again, concerns around there with regard to devolved Governments' wish to bring in a specific policy because of a specific issue within their area of competence, something that might mean minimum unit alcohol pricing. As Rachael Hamilton has said, we are very much focused on the economic analysis. Our findings will be very much based on what we understand are the effects on how trade is working and the subsequent potential effects on competition and access to markets and consumer choice. That will be our focus, but we acknowledge that there are wider issues in relation to health, environmental and objectives, and those are really for Governments to consider in the round alongside any advice that we give. In terms of the health of the internal market, it will be very much that we are focusing on those economic technical issues and not attempting to go beyond the remit that has been visited for us and our expertise. We are mindful of the need to make sure that that is really clear when we do our reports so that people do not reach conclusions that there is a problem in the holistic understanding of how the four nations are working together. Our focus is really on those economic issues and not on those broader, well-being issues that you have just mentioned. Okay, thank you for that. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much. Can I invite Mr Golden, please? Thank you, convener. Perhaps if I start with Sheila and then move round to the rest of the panel if there are other views, the stated position of the Scottish Government with regard to the continuity bill is to align with new EU laws as they are introduced. If exercise could lead to divergence in regulations and create distortions in the UK internal market, are you concerned about the potential impact of the continuity bill? It is probably very important for us to be clear that we are quite a technocratic organisation and our role is primarily to advise Governments on the effects of particular regulatory divergence on the internal market. We do not have a role in judging what it is appropriate for Governments to do in terms of regulatory divergence. This remains the policy of all four Governments. There is an intention to reach agreements through the common frameworks programme that would allow harmonisation or divergence depending on what Governments have agreed. That appears to be the appropriate mechanism that Governments have put in place for that. Our role is there to support Governments if necessary with that discussion on common frameworks or for any matter that does not fall within the programme. We are not there to sort of reach judgments or decisions. Thank you for that. Jonathan Scott, do you have any comments? Just to add one comment to that, I think that one of the things that we can do, we do already, is to shine a light to make sure that the facts are collected together, that they are analysed and assessed. The divergence issue is clearly one that the four nations will have to grapple with. I think that we can only describe what is happening on the ground and what is the effect or what is the likely effect, but then those are political decisions. I would not want you to be in any doubt that we are very conscious of the sensitivity of the role that we have been given and, indeed, very conscious that we must not step beyond our remit. Mr Scott, can I ask a supplementary question on that? You said that the four nations would need to come to agreement on something. The Northern Ireland protocol means that Northern Ireland will stay in step with European regulations and European law. It is a stated wish of the Scottish and the Welsh Government that there would be an implementation of European law going forward that would keep in place powers, as we call it in Scotland. Can the UK Government override the wishes of the three other areas in a particular area where there is a problem in agreement? What happens when there is a stalemate there and it is maybe three to one against the implementation of a European law or regulation? I will let Rachael answer the technicality of that, if I can put it that way. You have identified what is clearly an issue that we are going to have to grapple with. Our role is to report, and that takes us into either potentially the areas of common frameworks where there has now been real progress, but there will clearly be other areas. Rachael, perhaps you would like to elaborate a little. That was in our written submission that the Northern Ireland protocol and the regulated provisions that are there to implement the Northern Ireland protocol outside our remit as the Office for the Internal Market. You are absolutely right that there could be divergence where Northern Ireland implements provisions that allow them to stay in line with the EU, and the rest of individual nations in GB choose to diverge from that. That is something that we will likely be able to look at if we are requested to do so. That is obviously only in the goods area, because the Northern Ireland protocol only applies to goods. We recognise the challenges associated with the Northern Ireland protocol. We are not able to look at it directly, but it is a very important factual context that will take into consideration. To the extent that there is divergence as a result of Northern Ireland choosing to stay or having to stay aligned, that is something that we may be able to look at in terms of the impact on the UK internal market. I appreciate that you are not a political body and you are not making political decisions. I do not think that I am in any way holding you accountable for that, but I wonder how is a body going to navigate the reality that you are implementing an act that does not enjoy overall political support in Scotland? My colleagues have already said that we are conscious of the political sensitivities and the environment in which we are operating. I guess that we have had very constructive conversations at official level across the four nations. We are working to implement the tasks that we have been given by the UK Government. One of the ways in which we progress is by being as factual and evidence-based as we can. We have information gathering powers that support us if we need to in gathering information, but we have so far found all four nations comfortable in sharing information with us. That is particularly on the analytical side, as we were talking about before, our first state of the internal market report that we are putting together at the moment. We just need to continue to do the job that we have been given to do in a relatively technical and straightforward manner. However, as you said, the political context is an important one, and one that we are certainly not blind to. I have a question for Sheila Scobie. Jenny Minto was asking about various examples of the kind of things that might come before you for decision or for you to produce advice on factual information on. You mentioned the concept of the barrier to trade. Jenny Minto pointed out that this is a contentious concept in a number of areas, not least in areas around control of alcohol pricing. When you mentioned that, quite accurately, all that you can do is provide factual advice, and it is up to ministers to take a political decision. Have you any picture of what context of what process UK ministers would use to reach such a decision? Do you have a clearer picture of how that process at the end would work? It is a really good question, and it is a question that we have been asking Government officials, because I think that it is a really important project. There is a requirement in terms of legislation for the Government to produce regulatory impact assessments. There is an obvious tool or mechanism there. In Scotland, obviously, it is the Bria, and we are increasingly seeing that those are being used very effectively to set out what the potential economic effects could be on things like competition on consumers, which I think is a really positive development in Scotland in the last few years. You could imagine that, if a Government has approached us and sought some advice for us on a particular aspect of regulation or policy, that fear may have some sort of effect on the market. It could then reflect that in the Bria and present that to the Parliament for your scrutiny. That is one option. The other thing is that, in the UKIM Act, it remembers that it has an opportunity for an authority and Government to fulfil the role of the OIM by using an alternative body. There is an option for Governments to take advice from so many different places. It may be that there is a particular regulator already within a sector that already has a good amount of information on cross-border effects or effects on trade or competition. It may be appropriate for them to deliver advice or for us to work collectively. It is not something that we have explored in depth, but we are very open to suggestions on how to make that work effectively. Clearly, the key aim of the OIM's role is to support Governments' role and to get in the way of the work that they are trying to do. I wonder if I could bring Mr Scott in, who has indicated that he wants to comment. I just wanted to acknowledge Dr Allan's question, because it is something that we are acutely aware of. For an unelected body, that carries risk not just in carrying out the function, but more generally. That is why I am delighted that we are here today and having an opportunity to have that dialogue. It is also reflected in the fact that we have sought to allocate within the organisation some of our most senior resource to it. Again, the fact that I am here today is an acknowledgement of that sensitivity. We are going to have to play it as it develops, but I can rest assured that the issue that you have raised, more generally, the risk to us as an organisation being between the four nations, is something that the board is very alive and alert to. I hope that you will take some comfort, not just the resource that we have allocated, but that the activity will not just sit all on its own. It will have the full support of the organisation as it needs it. Rachel Leading the team can draw in from the wider organisation skills. I am grateful for that. If I may, it is the final brief question for Ms Merleys. I think that it was yourself who mentioned an on-going actual context with Northern Ireland and its particular situation. I appreciate that. That is not the same situation as Scotland's. If there is an on-going policy intention that appears to become consistent in Scotland of keeping pace with European requirements, is there also a factual context that builds up around Scotland that has to become a fact that has to be borne in mind? I suppose that that would mean that there is more likely to be examples of regulatory divergence in Scotland, potentially if Fingland and Wales do not choose to follow that path. That is something that will take as it arrives, but you are absolutely right. It is important for us to be aware. I am thinking about the common frameworks that are being established, such as waste and circular economy. You have a mixture of regulations that are in place already, regulations that have effectively made the cut that are emerging, such as the deposit return scheme, and then new regulations that are coming forward that would come in more fully into the remit of post-Brexit consideration on EU alignment, or otherwise. How do you work with those? Is there effectively a firewall? When it comes to the deposit return scheme, for example, that is something that you would not consider, because that was previous, although regulations can be updated over time. The common frameworks are spanning all those three areas, so I am just interested in how you can draw the line, because some of those have contexts that affect each other as well. Sorry, I was not quite sure who was coming in on this. I am very happy to kick off, and I may hand over to Tashida for any further detail. It is a good question. We have been working very closely with colleagues on the common frameworks side. We understand the importance of common frameworks, and we want to make sure that our role adds to the role of the common frameworks rather than cuts across it in any sense. Your specific question around timing is an important one. We only look at regulatory provisions post-transition, so you are absolutely right. Things that already existed pre-transition would not be relevant regulatory provisions for us to consider, but as they get amended or changed through any kind of process, either legislative or otherwise, they may then come into our scope and our remit. I do not know whether, Sheila, you want to add anything on the specifics of those examples? I do not think so particularly. I think that you have pretty much covered what I would have said. Okay. Specifically on deposit return scheme, if that was amended, that would come within the scope of your remit? Yes. To the extent that that was done through a new regulatory provision, a legislative amendment, that would then come into scope. Although, in general, we do have to look very carefully at scope, because there are various exclusions and all sorts of things that need to be assessed on an individual basis. Broadly speaking, if it is a new regulatory provision, then it is something that we will certainly consider. Thank you, convener. I was going to ask questions about the protocol and the common frameworks. Most of those questions have been answered. As a final observation, there is clear tension between the UK Internal Market Act and common frameworks. I wonder if any of the witnesses had any observations on how they, in their work, might manage that tension. I am sorry, but it is a rather broad and general question to finish off with. I do not know who ever wants to go first. Rachael Hamilton, please come in. We are very aware of the common frameworks process. When we took on board our functions, the nations were keen to come and tell us about the common frameworks. We understand that they are a collaborative way of reaching agreement on potential regulatory divergence or potential regulatory alignment. It is important to say that it is early days, even for the common frameworks process, let alone for the Office for the Internal Market. We are keen to assist where we can in any sort of issues associated with common frameworks and potential exclusions from the UKMAT. I know that there is a process that has now been articulated by the UK Government and agreed by the four nations for that. Where we can provide the assistance, we are happy to do so, but it is something that we are working on actively at the moment with our colleagues across the four nations, because I say that it is still quite early in the process to articulate exactly how we can best help. That is the last of our questions from committee this morning. Is that right, Donald? Do you have another question? No, you are fine. Thank you so much. I suspect that this has been an introductory session with you. The subject area is going to be of interest to the committee as the whole situation develops. As you start to finalise some of the areas that are in development at the moment. For this morning, I thank Mr Scott, Ms Merrily and Ms Scolby for your attendance at the committee this morning. That ends our consideration of this agenda item, and I am now going to close the meeting of the Constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee. Thank you very much for your attendance.