Finance and Constitution Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Official Report 735KB pdf

---

Common Frameworks

Item 3 is a report on the committee’s fact-finding visit to Brussels last week, during which we explored how common frameworks operate in other countries and, in particular, how they relate to trade negotiations. We will shortly publish a note from the clerks summarising the discussions that we had with the non-governmental organisations that we met and representatives from Germany, Norway, Switzerland and Canada, and we have also commissioned some research on these areas, which will also be published. For the moment, however, I will quickly give my own feedback on the visit, which I thought was very successful. It was highly educational, certainly for me, and I ask other members to reflect on their own findings.

First of all, I thank those who commented on these matters yesterday in the Government’s chamber debate on future trade negotiations. I realise that some reflections have already been offered; I am not looking for them to be repeated, although I suppose that some of that will be necessary. For me, the common theme that came through from all of the countries to whom we spoke was the early and deep engagement that there was between the state and the sub-state and which involved the Parliaments, stakeholders, NGOs and so on, and the way in which they went about their business in their own countries. I thought that that was something that we could learn from.

Moreover, the fact that engagement happened not just at the beginning but continually helped build a level of trust and understanding of the various positions of the sub-states. The framework that was provided as a result ensured more co-ownership of the final position by the state and more collective understanding of why a particular position had been reached and agreed. That probably strengthened the state’s own position in negotiations, because it knew that everybody was behind them and that the rest of the country was well in tune with the nation state’s up-front position in those circumstances.

Clear, formal structures were also very helpful in making sure that discussions actually happened. Obviously a lot of informal discussion was going on, too, but there was also a formal process that I think helped everyone clearly understand the remits and roles of the various bodies.

My own reflection is that, because of where we have come from, our default position in Scotland has been about finding ways of improving the dispute mechanisms instead of ensuring that we reach consensus and agreement and thereby front-load the process. That was quite a useful learning point for me. It is certainly clear that having such an in-depth process from the beginning and ensuring that general agreement had been reached resulted in less use of dispute mechanisms and fewer costly court proceedings. Indeed, as Willie Coffey said in the chamber yesterday, the Swiss were quite surprised to hear us talk about disputes, because of the way in which they involved the cantons in discussions. That was very useful.

What do we need to learn? It is pretty obvious—it is the need for devolved institutions, civic society, NGOs and other organisations to have meaningful engagement in the development of the common frameworks and for us as a committee to find out how we go about that as part of our job. Obviously there is a relationship between common frameworks and how future trade arrangements will work, but having early and on-going discussions in order to reach better agreements and have fewer disputes was, I think, an important lesson for us. We need those kinds of well-understood structures, but I think that the biggest and most important lesson is how we build trust and confidence for the future.

Those are some of the things that I learned from our visit. Do others have any reflections to offer?

Like you, convener, I was struck by the early and on-going investment, negotiations and discussions and how such an approach led to outcomes that were better for the nation state as a whole, if you want to put it that way.

Although each case study—each country—that we looked at had different histories, different structures and different cultures and even though we cannot necessarily do some sort of easy lift and shift or cherry pick, there are, I think, opportunities to look at those experiences further and adapt them to our own situation. It gave me some cause for hope: if other countries are able to achieve better local, regional and national dialogue and to seek agreement early, surely we can find new ways of working together with our various partners, particularly in relation to trade.

Convener, you have given a very fair summary of what we heard. However, one thing that struck me was the difficulty in finding direct parallels with the common frameworks that we are talking about in the United Kingdom. That is not to say that there was not a lot that we could learn from the people whom we met, but the fact is that other countries do not have the exact arrangement that we are likely to enter.

The point that you and Angela Constance have made about up-front discussions being more important than complex dispute resolution procedures is, I think, very fair. The other issue that came up in our discussions with the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority was the need for a watchdog to oversee the common frameworks to ensure, in particular, that the rights of citizens and entities such as businesses were properly safeguarded. Perhaps we need to consider that issue further.

As I was able to take part only in the first day of the visit, I am interested in speaking more to colleagues about what was gathered on the second. On Murdo Fraser’s point about the need for monitoring and accountability arrangements, I think that one of the things that might test the asymmetric nature of devolved or decentralised power within the UK is the question of the levels of government to which such structures should be accountable or to which they should report.

Convener, you gave a very clear description of the open, participative and communicative process that works well elsewhere, but the starkest thing for me is how far we seem to be from that. If that is where we are looking to get to, we are not starting as we mean to go on. What we have at the moment is pretty much a behind-closed-doors discussion between two Governments that is not taking place in an open and participative spirit. I think that both Governments need to be challenged more strongly on that in the immediate period before we start implementing common frameworks.

The nub of why we went over to Brussels was to tackle these dispute resolution issues and explore how we can get reach agreement and consensus. Clearly the issues around common frameworks are difficult and challenging. As others have said, we saw from a range of examples—Germany, Switzerland and Canada—that, with clear rules and mechanisms in place and discussions on-going, agreement was, in many cases, able to be reached without the need to go to court. That is a challenge for us—as Patrick Harvie has rightly said, we are not at that stage yet—but, as Angela Constance pointed out, the visit showed that there are ways of doing that sort of thing and that there is a way forward. I think that the challenge for us is how we move to one of those models.

Essentially, what we need is a change in culture from all the parties involved. We have all been too confrontational about this, but I suppose that that is the very nature of politics. It was interesting to hear from some of the participants in our sessions that, even when they disagreed, they very much came from the position that, at the end of the day, agreement had to be reached.

I agree with everything that colleagues have said. I was genuinely surprised at how co-operative our colleagues in Europe, particularly the Germans and the Swiss, are on these kinds of matters. They have put an awful lot of effort into ensuring up-front advance engagement at Government and even at civic society level. If we take this forward, I hope that we can reach out to the UK Government on behalf of Wales and Northern Ireland and say, “Do you agree to engage with us on these issues to see if we can make genuine improvements and progress in this area?” I genuinely think that we will all win if we have that kind of process.

I agree with your summary, convener. Indeed, I touched on a lot of those issues in my contribution to yesterday’s debate in Parliament.

I particularly agree with—and would repeat—Patrick Harvie’s point about transparency of intergovernmental relations. I would also repeat James Kelly’s point about the need for formal structures and new ways of working. If they are underpinned by a spirit of co-operation and goodwill from all involved, it will go a very long way to resolving a lot of the issues that we face.

I echo everybody’s comments, and I also thank the committee clerks for their diligence in organising the meetings and the events—indeed, the whole trip. It was seamless. Everybody at our meetings—the organisations, the NGOs and so on—showed continual professional engagement and a willingness to listen to us and to try to support our ask with regard to common frameworks when they do not often use that particular language.

I remember one particularly interesting moment in our meeting with the director general of agriculture and rural development, who mentioned that the focus of the common agricultural policy, which we will be exiting, was evolving to a more nationalistic or independent country approach. There was a recognition that each country might have different needs when applying certain principles of the CAP or the agricultural approach.

Thank you for that feedback, colleagues. As I have said, the clerks’ notes will become a public document.

I see that we are a bit ahead of schedule. As not all the witnesses for our next item are here, does the committee agree to take item 5 in private now and get that business discharged? We will come back to the round-table discussion afterwards.

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we will now move into private for item 5.

10:14 Meeting continued in private.  

10:31 Meeting continued in public.