Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Meeting date: Thursday, November 16, 2023

Official Report 648KB pdf

---

European Union Alignment (Annual Reports)

Our second agenda item is evidence on a series of reports regarding the Scottish Government’s commitment to align with the European Union where appropriate. The reports include a draft of the Scottish Government’s 2023 annual report on use of the keeping pace power in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021.

We are joined by Angus Robertson, the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. With him from the Scottish Government are George Macpherson, who is the head of EU policy and alignment, and Lorraine Walkinshaw, who is from the legal directorate. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a short—that is what it says here—opening statement. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much. On Europe day on 9 May, I reiterated the Scottish Government’s commitment to its EU alignment policy and to providing further information to support the Parliament’s scrutiny role on the subject.

Government policy has not changed. Even in the face of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, with its divergent and deregulatory intent, we will continue to seek to align with the EU where appropriate. That means where it is possible and where it is meaningful for us to do so. The standards that are set by the EU will continue to influence many of the policy frameworks and initiatives that we develop domestically. I am pleased to provide evidence to the committee.

The new annual report improves the transparency of ministerial decision making and increases the amount of information that is provided. The reporting includes our draft annual report on use of the power to align, as required by the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. The report was laid in the Parliament on 31 October.

As the committee knows, since your response to last year’s draft report on the continuity act, officials have been working to expand and centralise the process of managing and sharing information regarding alignment decisions. I thank parliamentary clerks for working jointly with my officials so that we can provide the information that is needed by the Parliament to carry out its scrutiny function.

My letter of 31 October to the committee confirms the details of the extended approach that has been implemented starting in July. Our expanded reporting demonstrates the complexity of taking alignment decisions, and the need for a proportionate approach in that alignment is not always possible as Scotland is no longer part of the structures to which much of EU law relates. We are also constrained by the limitations of the devolution settlement and, of course, the willingness of the United Kingdom Government to respect it.

I would like to mention the independent research that was commissioned by the committee and carried out by Queen’s University Belfast. I agree with its core findings that

“the Scottish Government commitment to align with developments in EU law has largely been upheld”,

and that there has been no

“significant divergence between Scots Law and EU Law”.

I also agree with the report’s conclusion that minor technical divergence will accumulate over time.

Mindful of that, the Scottish Government’s approach includes careful consideration of on-going technical developments in the EU, including via tertiary legislation as well as other instruments. That is illustrated in our expanded annual reporting, although this year’s report only reflects the part of the year during which our updated processes have been in operation.

As outlined in my letter from 3 September, when Scottish Government legislation is laid in the Scottish Parliament, information will now be included in policy notes and relevant memoranda for bills to assist with scrutiny. In the future, our reports will cover a full year and will be based on the same reporting period as that of the continuity act; namely, from 1 September to 31 August.

I would welcome discussion between officials regarding the feasibility of sharing the tracker material that is produced by Dr Lisa Whitten in a timeframe that would allow us to co-ordinate the consideration of its conclusions in our analysis of current EU proposals.

I hope that our revised reporting and these comments are helpful in considering how the Scottish Government is implementing its alignment policy, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I certainly welcome the reports. It has been really useful to see the level of detail that we now have available to us.

In your letter, you agreed with Dr Whitten’s assessment in her EU law tracker report that a degree of diversion is a risk that will likely occur cumulatively, potentially becoming significant in the future. Can you expand on the challenges that the Scottish Government has in that respect? What would be the significant implications of regulatory divergence for businesses that are seeking to trade with the EU and in the internal market, including Northern Ireland?

We all understand that this is quite a technical area, so we are all very grateful to have the support of committee clerks and advisers and, in my case, my civil service colleagues here and a wider team. If any of them want to illustrate with specifics the points that I am making in generality, I would be grateful for additional comments.

The first thing that I would say is that we are seeking to remain aligned with the EU where it is appropriate to do so. Using phrases such as “where it is appropriate”, “where it is possible” and “where it is meaningful” matters. We are not in the European Union, so we are trying to find our best way, using a variety of different approaches, to make sure that we can remain aligned and working in parallel with the EU. We will do that within devolved competence, and we will do that to implement measures that have demonstrable effect.

There are areas in which it is unlikely that there would be demonstrable effect, and there are areas in which measures relate to EU organisations that we are not a part of, or they might be involved in particular areas in which there is no legal locus here. It is literally impossible to do 100 per cent of what the EU is doing in terms of its policy, because we are not in the EU now.

That said, we are going to do everything that we can to maintain the standards and values of the European Union and its strategic approach to things. We have a resource in the Scottish Government here and, indeed, in Scotland House in Brussels—I think that a good number of committee members have already been there, so you will know how competent the team is. Those resources will, in co-ordination, ensure the best way of providing you—and through you, to business and such like—with an understanding of which legislation will have an impact on what we are going to be doing. Everyone on the committee will understand the reporting mechanisms that have been brought in train and will, as a result, be aware of how, when measures are introduced, alignment will be achieved.

I think that we are in a much better place now. As there have been quite a few changes on the committee, some colleagues might not have heard this, but I have already given the committee a commitment in this respect and have made it clear that, having spent 10 years on the European Scrutiny Committee at Westminster, where every week we had to go through European Union proposals, and having quite literally sat where you are sitting, I do understand what you require to be satisfied that you can scrutinise what the Scottish Government is doing on alignment. However, it is appreciated that this has the potential to be a massive undertaking, so we are trying to find a balance between reporting the legislation, the policies and the strategies of the European Union and how we are seeking to remain aligned with them, in order that you can scrutinise what we are doing. It is about striking a balance between giving you something unwieldy and too technical, with perhaps too much being lost in the detail, and giving you everything that you require.

As I have said, this is the first published iteration of this approach. If there is something that you feel that you require more of or less of, or if you feel that you require something different, we are very open to hearing those comments. I know that my colleagues and the committee clerks have been working closely to ensure that our reporting method is of a standard that is appropriate to you.

Thank you. I move to questions from the committee, and I call Mark Ruskell.

On your comment about what the committee would like to see more of, cabinet secretary, I do welcome the improvements that have been made to the report this year, but I note the useful table in annex C, which gives the title of the relevant European law, the subject issue at stake and the Scottish Government’s current alignment consideration. Under the final heading, there are a number of statements, with issues “under active consideration”, proposals “under development” and so on. There is some indication of the direction of travel, but the table does not really say exactly where we are in the policy process.

Perhaps I can take, as an example, the nature restoration law that is coming at European level and which will establish “legally binding ... targets”. The table says that the proposal is “under development” in Scotland, but we know that it will probably be wrapped into the environment bill. To what extent can we get more clarity on that sort of thing?

Part of the context of my question is the issue of common frameworks, which have arisen with regard to the deposit return scheme, and there is also a transparency issue. I feel, therefore, that there might be a bit more granularity to be had in the conversation across the UK. For example, are there any implications arising from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?

I wonder whether, beyond a general statement of “Yes, we broadly agree with this, and we are working on something”, more could be put under that heading to show the Government’s workings with regard to where we are at the moment with alignment and what a committee—whether this one or another—should be looking out for.

Well, I think that that will show the committee’s workings in action. We are providing the context for the work that we are doing; we are aware of and assessing the proposals, and we are considering what we would wish to do to remain aligned and what implications that might have in the wider context that Mr Ruskell has outlined. That sort of approach leads to exactly those questions being asked.

I cannot be psychic, and neither can my colleagues. The list of legislation is very long, and there might be something there that is not interesting to anybody at all. However, given the variety of interests that members have, there might be really burning issues for you. Now, because we have been able to highlight the things that are on the docket, so to speak, if you have questions, you may ask them in writing, or if your questions are of such import that you wish me or any of my colleagues to give evidence, we can do that.

09:15  

There is another aspect to this. The information that we provide has been done in such a way that the subject committees of the Scottish Parliament, which have a particular locus in different policy areas, can say that these environmental issues, to use the example that Mr Ruskell gave, should be considered in the round by the Scottish Parliament committee that deals with environmental and related matters. We hope that this process will make that easier.

It is not for me to sit here and outline specific bits of European legislation today, but this is the start of a process of giving the committee the opportunity to ensure that your colleagues on other committees are aware of proposals, what should be looked at more closely and so on, or whether you wish us to provide you with more evidence as part of your work as a committee, because you require more information about something and how it links with other areas. That is, I think, how the process is supposed to work, so Mr Ruskell is making the point for me. The point is for me to give you an awareness of what has happened, what we have done with it, what is being considered and what is coming down the track that we need to think about more.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are no longer in the European Union, there are still ways in which we can make our views about certain measures known to EU colleagues. A little bit of horizon scanning would be useful in that regard, and I hope that that is what can emerge from the reporting mechanism.

I think that slightly more granular information would be good, because many of the boxes just say “Subject to future consideration”. What does that mean? For example, if something was related to programme for government commitments or a particular common framework, it might be useful to signpost it.

Yes.

I also want to ask about the decision that was captured in last year’s report to diverge from the EU in relation to building standards for electric vehicle car parking. Is any kind of backward look taken at such decisions? That decision was made, but is there a point at which you go back and ask whether it is working, what sort of progress we are seeing in the EU with the roll-out of electric vehicle charging in public car parks and whether we should reconsider the decision? Is it the case that, once we have made a decision, we have diverged, thanks very much, or is there a point at which we go back and ask whether, in terms of keeping pace, that was the right decision? Is there a policy impact in that?

I will answer the second part of that and ask George Macpherson to come in on the first part and to say whether he has any subsequent things to mention on the car charging point.

That is also an issue where, in my mind, I really hope that the Parliament’s subject committees, which are aware of how the Scottish Government has sought to align with what has come through the EU institutions, ask themselves after some time whether it is working as intended, as they would do with anything else. That is how this is supposed to work. If is not working, we need to work out why, but something such as that is absolutely at the heart of committees’ scrutiny work. If you do not have enough information, ask for it. If you want ministers to give evidence about specific measures, have them do that. In the meantime, if there are technical issues or subjects that lie close to the heart of one member rather than the committee as a whole, please raise them us and we will deal with them in the usual ways.

The process is quite new. We have had only a small number of months’ worth of centrally gathered information with which to produce the reports. Annex C, which currently identifies EU proposals that the Scottish Government is considering and the view that we have reached on them so far, will in future contain a full year’s worth of reporting, and I imagine that subsequent reports will contain the current position on those proposals. Looking back, you will be able to compare the reports to see how that position has changed over time. In addition, when the Scottish Government takes action to align with particular proposals, that will be captured in the report, wherever it is most relevant.

The situation is due partly to the fact that the report is quite new. However, I believe that that particular proposal will be captured in annex C as it is considered. As I said, it can then be referred back to.

Good morning to the cabinet secretary. I agree with your comments at the start of your statement about the work that the committee and its clerks have done with the EU law tracker and so on. It is worth making the observation that we are talking about Scottish Government policy, and the committee’s correct role is to scrutinise that. The Scottish Government should lead the way in the work on tracking EU law and so on, and the committee should react to that. There is a slight sense that that has previously been the wrong way round. We are beginning to correct that, but I put the observation on the record and will welcome any observations that you have on it in a moment.

I ask specifically about a point that was made in Dr Whitten’s report, which we wrote to you about on 14 September, asking for your response. I may be wrong, but I do not think that the annual report covers changes in tertiary EU law or measures that are contained in the 15 primary UK acts that make provisions in areas that were previously within EU competence as well as provisions that have otherwise arisen because of UK withdrawal from the EU. Is it possible, either now or at a later date, for you or your officials to give an update on those two points?

I will answer the first part of Donald Cameron’s question, and there will be some updating on the second part. On the first point, I absolutely acknowledge that, in the absence of a reporting mechanism, the committee found itself in an imbalance of understanding, knowledge and information. From the first instance of that being the subject of discussion with me before the committee, I have always acknowledged it. I want to be as helpful as possible and have always explained my own personal experience from having had to do this at the other end of the spectrum—every week, the European Scrutiny Committee in the UK Parliament had a very thick sheaf of papers even after a sift by four legal advisers, all of whom were former UK ambassadors. The volume of material that can be scrutinised is enormous.

This is the first attempt at providing a mechanism that should point you towards what we have done, what we are considering and what we expect to be coming down the line, and it is a really good start. There will be areas for which one wants more information. One will be aware of the ground, which was perhaps not previously the case. I therefore totally agree, and I hope that we get the balance right. That is why I say again, if more is required, or less, or if things are needed in a slightly different format, let us try to make that work.

However, I hope that there is an appreciation that this is a very genuine attempt by the Government to work with the committee for the benefit of better lawmaking and scrutiny. We are open to any feedback about what needs to change in relation to that mechanism, but the work is just starting, so we can give it a chance to bed in and then take an iterative approach as we go forward.

George Macpherson, do you want to add anything on the tertiary law points?

Yes, thank you. We do not differentiate in the reporting between different types of EU legislation, so the tertiary legislation is also captured in our reporting. As we have said, for this particular set of reports, the reporting is for a shorter period. Therefore, there is not a direct read-across with regard to some of the items that Dr Whitten highlighted in her report, because that was prior to our identifying and collating that information centrally. That is not to say that those items might not have already been considered, but we do not have the information for the periods that are outwith the change in the process that we have now implemented.

That said, I believe that we picked up most of the items that Dr Whitten flagged in her report, and I think that the item that we did not pick up was to do with how we aggregated the information. That highlights that there will always be differences between how Dr Whitten identifies something as relevant to devolution in Scotland and the Scottish Government’s alignment commitment, and there will be a difference with regard to how we look at that.

Next year, the report will be for a full year, so a direct read-across will be easier. As the cabinet secretary said in his opening statement, we would welcome discussions, at official level at least, around how we could align better, if you will pardon the pun, on how we look at those commitments.

I also note that Dr Whitten highlighted the same point that the cabinet secretary highlighted, which is that the committee itself might want to think about speaking to subject matter committees about particular issues. Again, we would consider our co-ordination role in that.

That is very helpful indeed.

I have a specific question about gene editing. I do not want to get into the pros and cons of gene editing; I do not think that it is appropriate for this committee to do that, and I should also refer to my entry in the register of interests in relation to farming and crofting. However, gene editing is an interesting area, because it is potentially an area on which Scotland could find itself as a bit of an outlier, given that the UK Parliament and the EU have legislated to an extent to allow gene editing, and the Scottish Government has been opposed to it. In your report, you note that you are now looking carefully at what the EU is doing. What is the Scottish Government’s current position on gene editing?

I will have to furnish Mr Cameron with some advice from Cabinet colleagues who have primary responsibility for that. That is where one of the dangers lies in having a report that includes a myriad of listings of different legislative proposals, because one can pick one out of the hat, draw attention to it and ask questions about it. I want to be able to provide Mr Cameron with the answer to his question, but I am not in a position to do that.

That is entirely fair enough. However, it is quite interesting just as an example of where Scotland is diverging from the rest of the UK and, arguably, what the EU is doing. That specific example is fascinating.

Mr Cameron is describing that in his own terms, which he is perfectly entitled to do, but it seems to me to be an excellent example—as was the previous example from Mr Ruskell, who has an interest in environmental legislation—of where my Government colleagues who have a responsibility in rural affairs or the environment portfolio will be pleased to answer questions about those areas.

09:30  

As someone who has worked very closely on European Union-related issues as a parliamentarian since 2001, I have always taken the view that there is a danger that things relating to the EU are viewed by Government in general as being an issue that is dealt with by European colleagues, as opposed to understanding that those are central issues right across Government.

That is why, to mirror the previous point, I am keen that colleagues on other committees take as close an interest in those issues as you do, convener, although it is your business to work out how you will impress that on them. That is not to say that you cannot do so as a committee. We need to know more about and be more conscious of those examples now that we have been able to identify in the report that they have happened, are happening or will happen, whether they are on the environmental or rural side of things. That is absolutely right.

To go back to Mark Ruskell’s question on retrospectively considering areas where we have not aligned, I want to look at how the Government defines “where appropriate” in relation to alignment in the statement of policy. The statement says that Scotland will seek to align with the EU

“where appropriate and in a manner that contributes towards maintaining and advancing standards”,

protecting health and wellbeing and maintaining our international standards, none of which anyone would disagree with. Will the minister unpack a bit of how the Government interprets that appropriateness, and who is final arbiter of that?

I imagine that there are two principal reasons why it may not be appropriate to align: first, where we are bound by UK law and it would be therefore unlawful for us to deviate from UK standards; and secondly, where it might significantly disadvantage our citizens for whatever reason because we are trying to compete in an EU market and in a UK market and so on.

Could you outline that, although I fully understand that, if we were a part of the EU, those questions would not emerge, because we would not have to define appropriateness?

I said to the committee earlier that there are two particular constraints or realities around which our commitment operates; first is the reality of our devolved competence and the wider UK structures, and second is whether European Union measures have demonstrable effect. To take an easy example, we are in a country where, unless somebody can correct me, we cannot grow olives, and we do not have a wine production sector, so European Union legislation on olive growing or wine production does not have an effect. Then there are things that are obviously within devolved competence, have demonstrable effect here and do not have a disadvantage. Around those realities, consideration needs to be given as to what we are doing.

Were we in the European Union, the situation would be entirely different, because everything would be, from a legislative standpoint, part of a treaty obligation and a requirement to ensure that one fully integrates the entire corpus of EU law. We have already inherited 47 years’ worth of that in Scotland.

Ms Forbes’s point is absolutely correct. There is not a 100 per cent read-across, notwithstanding the commitment to remain aligned. However, for anybody who understands how the European Union works and the fact that we are now not in the European Union, there will be areas that require, because they do not have direct impact on us, or because of the nature of the devolved settlement and how that works, a caveat—if one wants to call it a caveat—around appropriateness and possibility.

I have written down a few of those, and they are there for a reason, which is that we will not incorporate things that have no impact here or where the constraints are such that we cannot. That should not detract from the fact that, in the main, we will do exactly that which we have intended to do, which is to remain aligned.

George, do you wish to add anything from an administrative point of view, as somebody at the sharp end of making the decisions?

There is a particular example in the report relating to regulations on citrus growing. Scotland does not have a citrus industry. That is the only example that I would mention.

The examples that you have given are commonsensical, but where might there be some dubiety? Is it the default to say that we align and a case therefore has to be made for not aligning? Do you take each case on merit and discuss it? Are there any grey areas, where the Cabinet or the Government needs to consider whether there is an alternative route?

My default position is that we should before we should not—if that makes sense. The policy of the Government is that we wish to see Scotland rejoin the European Union as quickly as possible. I look forward to publishing the Scottish Government’s paper on this very subject tomorrow. Anybody who understands how European Union accession works knows that there is a requirement for candidate countries to show that they are ready to join, which, in significant part, is because there is an alignment between candidate countries and the standards of the European Union. Our remaining aligned with the European Union is key to the speediest rejoining of the European Union, which is our stated aim.

My position is that, wherever we can, we should be seeking to align, and there needs to be a very good reason why not. Ms Forbes makes the point: in significant part, it is very much a matter of common sense.

I will refer to colleagues about this later, but I am not aware where there are issues that may have been on the cusp, but there is nothing at the forefront of my mind that falls into that category. Will there be such issues? No doubt. I am not aware of any that are of particular import at the present time, however.

I am a wee bit conscious of the time, folks. If we could try and make questions and answers succinct, that would be helpful.

Cabinet secretary, you have talked about the approach that the Government is taking, about competence, about the effects and about some aspects of scrutiny. Those are all valid in the process. How has the Scottish Parliament’s EU law tracker supported the Government’s approach to alignment? Has the Government reflected on that? You have mentioned some sectors and business organisations this morning—how have they managed to co-operate under that process?

That is a good question. There are quite a number of different sources that can be used as part of EU tracking mechanisms, which are very common in Brussels. I think that everybody knows about the scale of representative organisations, embassies and offices there. Scotland has its own capacity and representation. I would hope that our process is as informed as possible by those tracking providers that provide that service in the best, most useful way. The work that is conducted in the Scottish Parliament is an important part of that.

We will only know if we are missing anything as we go through a number of rounds of the reporting mechanism. Colleagues, clerks or academics can then point to ways in which other tracking mechanisms have caught something—or not—and then work out whether we have done as well as we can.

It is a major industry in Brussels to make sure that everybody is aware of what is happening, and we will avail ourselves of the best information both there and here. As you will know from your own deliberations, extremely talented academics and specialists in the field work daily on that and form part of a wider ecosystem of flagging up what is happening and the import of that. We just have to make sure that we capture it all.

One specific area that has been discussed in the past is a Europe that is fit for the digital age. Scotland has ambitions of ensuring that it has the cultural, social and economic benefits of the digital society. Your ambition is to ensure alignment across the sector and across the area. What confidence can we have about assuring personal data and about the law behind that? My basic understanding is that there are still some complexities in achieving that and that it may be difficult to align some of it, depending on the barriers and areas of difficulty that may be approached or received.

That is a very complex area, and Alexander Stewart is absolutely right to highlight it. The European Union is one of the only bodies in the world with the scale and the heft to be able to come up with frameworks for some of those really big challenges, because it is a match for other trading blocs or for particular economic interests. We therefore have to watch very closely what European colleagues are doing in that area. Those of us who want the highest standards in those areas and others can invest some confidence in the fact that the EU will do a lot of the heavy lifting for us. That makes the case for why alignment is of import, quite apart from the sense of remaining aligned so that our return to the European Union is as seamless as possible.

The digital area is exceptionally complex. I am sure that Mr Stewart saw the coverage of the recent conference on artificial intelligence that was hosted by the UK Government—at which, unfortunately, Scotland was not present. Everybody has to think about how we approach all of that, in order to have the appropriate legal and other safeguards. We will work closely with European colleagues to make sure that it is fit for purpose here as well.

I listened to the exchange between you and Kate Forbes, in which there was mention of common sense. I wonder whether that makes you the Scottish Government’s minister for common sense. It seems to be the fashion, these days, to appoint such ministers.

I have two points. First, you mentioned accession. Accession is often portrayed as solidifying alignment. However, it also solidifies divergence, as happened with Maastricht—for example, with Danish second homes or the UK opt-out from the social chapter. If the EU proceeded with gene editing, I would be happy to see an opt-out on that. I just make that point because we sometimes get the wrong impression of what alignment actually means.

Given what you said about the volume of work in the UK Parliament and the resources devoted to scrutiny—including four legal advisers—and what I think is a fairly common academic assumption that there is a real lack of genuine scrutiny of European legislation beyond, perhaps, the House of Lords, are we not setting ourselves up to try to do far too much? You mentioned looking across the whole scope of things. I am fairly new to the committee, and maybe this has already been done, but might it be better for the Government and the committee to agree what was relevant and thereby make activity much more focused, as long as the committee or individual members could ask for information about areas that were not covered? Would it not be better to be more proportionate and focus on the areas that are more likely to be of interest to both Scotland and the committee? That would make it easier on officials, given the breadth of the stuff that they could be doing.

09:45  

I could not agree more. Indeed, I made that point prior to Mr Brown’s membership of the committee. There is a danger in saying, “We require everything in its raw format”—that is, unprocessed, unassessed and without prioritisation or the help of expert advisers, clerks or academics in assessing the importance of a regulation, a directive and so on. Having a sift process is a good thing, but it must operate in a way that can give individual committee members or different subject committees of the Parliament the opportunity in good time—I stress that phrase “in good time”, because it is the key factor—to influence the Government’s thinking and, indeed, the legislative programme, given that legislative instruments might well be at play, and to allow you as parliamentarians and collectively as a committee to discharge your responsibilities.

The injunction with regard to proportionality is key. Will we get that right all the time? Probably not, because of the volume of material. However, because we are looking back, looking at what is happening presently and looking at what is happening in the future, you can—to go back to Mr Ruskell’s specific example on legislation—allow evidence to be taken in good time, allow more information to be drawn down and satisfy yourselves that you have done everything that you think is necessary and proportionate.

We are trying to do exactly the same, and the fact that there is an open channel between officials and committee clerks is also very helpful. We should not be satisfying your demands as a committee just from evidence session to evidence session—it should be an on-going process. You should be aware of things that are happening in the meantime, and we should be aware of any specific issues that you might have.

Indeed, Mr Cameron’s question was a good example of that; he wanted to know something technical, but although I have a very big folder, I did not have that information, and I would have liked to have been able to furnish him with it. If we can get that process working well, questions will, I hope, be answered, but if more information is required, it can be given in good time, as part of the committee’s on-going investigations and inquiries.

I suppose that there is a distinction to be drawn with regard to the Government’s obligation to look across the whole scope of things, but if the Government and the committee can agree a position where what we receive has more relevance and less volume, that will be good.

In response to Mark Ruskell, you mentioned talking to the EU ourselves. Obviously, the EU is the source of much of the legislation, but you might be aware that this Parliament and this committee have the ability to nominate to CALRE—the Conference of Regional Legislative Assemblies—which I have been nominated to, or the proximity group or whatever it is called to the Committee of the Regions. However, we will not have a member on that for many months to come, which I think undermines the ability of this committee and this Parliament to have those direct conversations. I do not know whether it is proper to do this—I know that the committee clerks are working on it—but could the Government prevail upon the UK Government to speed the process up as quickly as possible?

Yes, we will do that, and we will report back to you.

I think that we have to use every route in that we can. Many of you will have met Martin Johnson and members of the team at Scotland House, who are very capable at reaching legislators, and we are also in the fortunate position of having a friends of Scotland group in the European Parliament, which goes across the mainstream political families. If members want to speak to colleagues in the European People’s Party, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats or the Greens and the European Free Alliance, there are routes in through the European Parliament and the European Commission. Indeed, it is one of the reasons for our having conversations with other Governments at federal and state level. We want open channels of communication, so that if there are things that we should raise, we will raise them.

Not being present is a problem, and none of that is a substitute for doing what every other normal country does, which is sit on the Council of Ministers and take part in the discussions about what is happening in the European Union, have a nominated commissioner sit on the Commission of the European Union and, indeed, have our full complement of members in the European Parliament making the laws that will have an impact.

The only way to do that is to be a member state of the European Union. Sitting outside in the cold, which is where we are, means that we have to find workarounds, because Brexit has brought about a circumstance in which we are no longer part of the decision-making structures of the EU. Therefore, we will try our best, but there is no substitute for the proper way of doing it.

I, too, thank the clerks and the officials for their work on producing those reports.

I will follow up on the questions from Kate Forbes and Donald Cameron on the tests in general that the Scottish Government is applying on EU alignment.

Earlier, you said that we align with EU law where appropriate and that that means where it is possible and meaningful—which means not aligning where there is no impact. This morning, we have had the example of gene editing and whether that would be desirable, and Kate Forbes raised issues about whether provisions would be in our national interests. In addition to whether something is possible or meaningful, you mentioned common sense, and surely there is also an element or test of whether the Scottish Government agrees with the proposals.

Yes, absolutely. Perhaps there will be examples where one does not agree, but Mr Bibby’s point is a good illustration of the need for an awareness of where those things come about, which will enable members to question me or colleagues about the thought process that has brought us to the stage of saying that we are or are not able to proceed with things. The point is well made. That is why we are doing this. It is about being as well sighted as we can be in the best, most timeous way, and then being able to ask those very questions. I totally agree.

Thank you. The final thought from me, as committee convener, is to put on record the committee’s thanks to officials, clerks, our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament information centre and Dr Whitten for their work in making this significant progress.

Hear, hear.

I now suspend the meeting momentarily to allow officials to change over.

09:52 Meeting suspended.  

09:53 On resuming—