The committee has heard concerns about a lack of enforcement action against unlicensed operators, potentially due to the licensing authority being unable to recoup enforcement costs. Do you have any plans or is there anything in the pipeline to support authorities wishing to take enforcement action?

You have touched on the public appointments section of your office. It has once again needed beefing up, and you have put in an additional three full-time members of staff to support it. It might be good to get a flavour of why that had to happen, the additional impact that they are going to have and whether it has tackled the work-life balance issue in the organisation. As you have said, it was struggling to cope with day-to-day running but, at the same time, there needed to be some flex in that respect. It would be useful to have a flavour of that, too.

New things.

Minister, we are well aware of the organisations and structures that have issues with the scheme. One of the biggest is the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association, which said that the scheme was

“by far the worst example of policy implementation”

that it has ever encountered. It saw it as “fragmented”, “inconsistent”, “arbitrary”, “onerous” and “costly”. Those are some of the areas that it has concerns about.

You talked about health and safety. Organisations such as the SBBA are compliant with health and safety rules already, with reference to inspection and enforcement. How do you respond to the SBBA’s analysis, which is relatively scathing about how the scheme has impacted its sector?

We have touched on councillor-on-councillor complaints, and we know that they represent about 17 per cent of the total. The committee has been looking at barriers to elected office and we have heard that female councillors face much more hostility and toxicity in the council environment. It would be good to get a flavour of whether female councillors are submitting more complaints than male councillors. Have you seen such a trend? Do you want to express your views on that?

Good morning, sir. It is good to see you again.

I am delighted to see strong financial management being talked about in relation to the organisation, but within that, there are cost implications and increases. We are now looking at £1.5 million of expenditure in 2023-24, compared with £1.04 million in the past. That is quite a significant increase of more than 50 per cent over the year. We know that your workload has increased and that you are required to get rid of the backlog, as we have discussed at other committees that I have sat on, but can you explain the reasons behind the rise in costs and provide assurances that the increase, once again, represents value for money to the taxpayer?

This has been a helpful and robust debate on the future of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Before I respond to some of the contributions that have been made, I extend my thanks to the convener for the report, the important aspects of which she referred to in her opening speech.

We have heard today about the significant challenges that businesses experience when trading with the EU under the terms of the TCA. Although there have been recommendations that there should be an agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom to reduce those trade barriers, more support and guidance is required in the meantime from the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments to allow all businesses to manage the complexities of the current trading environment.

Support is particularly needed on monitoring divergence to allow for compliance with EU regulations—something that is necessary to export to the EU. The Agricultural Industries Confederation Scotland told us that

“small misalignments”

in regulation and technical standards

“happen all the time”

and that, to continue exporting to the UK, businesses and trade bodies must

“keep up with every single one of those changes.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 7 March 2024; c 3.]

Salmon Scotland said that, to monitor regulatory developments, the industry has

“had to have more people in station”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 28 March 2024; c 9.]

That comes at an administrative and financial cost.

To that end, we have invited the UK Government to explore the establishment of a formal mechanism to track divergence between the EU, the UK and Scotland. That should be publicly available as a resource for industry so that the monitoring burden does not sit with individual businesses or their representative bodies. In addition, the UK Government and the European Commission should work with businesses to develop clear guidance for them on customs procedures and rules of origin, among other things.

In the convener’s opening remarks, she mentioned stakeholders’ views that there is a need for closer regulatory alignment with the EU to address trade barriers. Scottish Chambers of Commerce wanted to see

“a closer regulatory policy relationship ... between the EU and UK, so that businesses do not face new trade barriers through passive regulatory divergence”.

Our report considers key aspects of possible alignment with the EU that the UK Government could pursue, including the SPS or veterinary agreement that we heard about in the debate. Such agreements could play a vital role in improving trade flows.

Although the Scottish Government has a commitment to align with EU law, the extent to which that has facilitated improved trade with the EU, without such agreements with the EU being in place, is unclear. We therefore recommend that the UK Government further reduces barriers to trade through a mutual recognition agreement with the EU on conformity assessments. That would allow UK and EU certifying bodies to confirm that a product that was made in one territory meets the regulations of the other. We recommend that, through work with the European Commission, the UK and EU emissions trading schemes be linked to enable Scottish businesses to be exempted from the charges and administrative burdens of the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism. Both of those actions would require greater alignment with the EU.

We also suggest the UK Government seeks

“to negotiate adjustments to the rules of origin on exporting to the EU”

and works alongside the European Commission to enable

“Scotland’s seed potato exporters to access their significant market in the EU.”

That could all be pursued through the timely upcoming review of the TCA.

However, negotiations to improve the trading relationship must not be confined to the formal review. There is a need for on-going co-operation and collaboration to make continued improvements to the operation of the TCA—an agreement that is still in its infancy and has several unresolved implementation issues. Effective governance of the TCA will be necessary to support improvements to the trading relationship through the implementation of the agreement, as well as the negotiation of further adjustments to the TCA or supplementary agreements.

Under the TCA’s governance structures, significant decisions regarding its operation can be made by political agreement between the European Commission and the United Kingdom Government. That means that there is a need for a strong level of scrutiny and stakeholder input on those decisions, including through improved engagement with civil society, business and trade unions via the domestic advisory group and the civil society forum. There is also an important role for the parliamentary partnership assembly, at which the Scottish Parliament is an observer.

We have heard many speeches this afternoon and I would like to mention some of them. The cabinet secretary said that trade could be improved and talked about the working relationship that is needed between the Government and Scottish Enterprise, as well as the opportunities that are available and the processes that exist. There is no doubt that there have been some difficulties for sectors. Nobody denies that.

Stephen Kerr talked about our report being “thorough, balanced and fair”. I echo that. It is thorough, balanced and fair, but the issue has been and continues to be complex. We should be assisting with the TCA going forward, with all of that in mind.

Neil Bibby spoke about the burdens, the regulations, the delays and his beloved chilli cheese bites. [Interruption.]

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Neil Bibby also spoke about the advice that is required from the Scottish Government.

Willie Rennie spoke about his delight in having the debate; about the processes, the sectors, the committee report and the tone; and about trying to reset the success of the Windsor agreement and how it has worked and whether there is a political will. He also talked about Erasmus and the challenges that come with that.

George Adam talked about the successful trip to Brussels and said that he and others were asked about knowing what they want. He also talked about the relationship for defending democracy across Europe and the Irish question about the recognition of professionals.

Martin Whitfield spoke about the breakdown in relationships, about the continued attempts to rebuild and refocus and about supporting businesses—giving them the skills and the support that they need—and all the SMEs that require that support.

I support the motion in the name of the convener on behalf of the committee of which I am deputy convener.

Over the past two years, culture funding has been subjected to repeated in-year cuts and U-turns. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give the sector that it will not be placed in a precarious position due to last-minute cuts in this financial year?

You have touched on the finances that you hope will be provided in the upcoming budget. How should the Scottish Government use the additional funding that it will receive as a result of the UK budget? How could that funding tackle the housing emergency that we face?