Health and Sport Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Official Report 586KB pdf

---

“Nutrition Related Labelling, Composition and Standards Common Framework”

Item 3 is an evidence session on the provisional UK common framework on nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards, following our first session on the framework at last week’s meeting.

As stated last week, common frameworks are being developed to ensure that rules and regulations in given policy areas remain consistent across the UK following our exit from the EU. The committee’s role is to scrutinise the common frameworks that fall within its remit and we have taken the view that we have a role both to influence the content and to monitor the application of the frameworks.

The committee will also act as a conduit between stakeholders and the Scottish Government. The Government has asked the committee to provide a commentary on the content of the framework. Last week we took evidence from stakeholders; this week we will take evidence from the minister.

I welcome again Joe FitzPatrick, Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing. This time, he is accompanied by Euan Page, head of UK frameworks at the Scottish Government, and Sam McKeown, head of food and feed safety policy at Food Standards Scotland. I invite the minister to make a short statement on the framework.

I thank the committee for inviting me to assist with its deliberations on the common framework. Officials from Food Standards Scotland have been involved throughout the process, alongside officials from the Department of Health and Social Care, the Welsh Government and the Food Standards Agency in Northern Ireland.

The framework is one of a number of provisional common frameworks that will come before Parliament and it is part of a programme that my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs has co-ordinated for our interest. I am, therefore, supported today by officials from Food Standards Scotland and the Scottish Government.

There has been a hugely collaborative effort demonstrating genuine co-operation and engagement between UK Administrations. The framework has been identified as a priority for agreement by the end of the year, in order to ensure that functions that are currently undertaken at EU level are delivered in a coherent and robust manner when the transition period ends.

The committee asked why it is seeing the framework only now and not alongside other frameworks relating to food. That is a consequence of both the approach by consensus that we have agreed with colleagues across the UK and wider pressures, not least the current pandemic. I assure the committee that the framework will not be finalised until all UK legislatures have had an opportunity to consider it in full.

Nevertheless, excellent progress has been made with the framework, which is one of the first to go before Parliament for scrutiny. I consider that it will ensure that repatriated EU functions relating to nutrition and health claims made on foods, the addition of vitamins, minerals and certain other substances to foods, and the composition and labelling of food supplements, food intended for infants and young children, food for special medical purposes and total diet replacement for weight control will all be delivered to a high standard.

The framework has followed agreed protocols for framework development and includes agreed UK processes for making policy recommendations to ministers, as well as governance and dispute resolution arrangements. It has been developed in accordance with the joint ministerial committee (European negotiations) principles that were agreed by all Administrations in 2017. That includes the principle that UK frameworks should ensure the functioning of the UK internal market while acknowledging policy divergence and that they should respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures. On that basis, we consider that the framework delivers against the principles agreed in 2017.

I hope that the committee found my reply to its letter of 17 November helpful. I am, of course, happy to answer any further questions.

Thank you, minister. I will start with a reference to your reply to that letter to establish a matter in relation to statutory instrument notifications. Your letter dated 30 November stated that there were two SI notifications from the Government to the Parliament relevant to the framework. The committee has considered numerous such notifications to date and we are still awaiting correspondence from the Government on several to confirm that the instrument has been made in the UK Parliament. Our calculation is that we are waiting for 16 out of 39. I ask the minister to confirm the notifications for which correspondence is still outstanding and confirm that we will receive those before the Christmas recess.

I will ask Euan Page to come in with more detail on that. The two instruments that I referred to in my letter to the committee—the Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which are a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs statutory instrument, and the Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which are a Food Standards Agency SI—are the two that we expect to update the committee on before recess. I do not know whether Euan can enlighten the convener about any further SIs that the committee should be expecting in the longer term or whether it would be better for us to write to the committee about that.

That may be a question for my colleague Sam McKeown in Food Standards Scotland, as it relates to SIs that fall within FSS’s remit.

I can confirm that the two SIs relating specifically to this framework—nutrition—have both been completed and the committee has been notified.

As the minister said, there are a couple of SIs for FSS—the DEFRA SI on food information and composition matters and the SI on food safety hygiene—that are in process at the moment. Wider SIs will be the responsibility of others across the Scottish Government. It may be that we need to get back on to that and collate a response across the Government.

Thank you. That would be helpful. Minister, you suggested that you would respond in writing, and it would certainly be helpful for the committee to know what else we should be waiting for, as well as the outcomes of the SIs and whether and when they will be laid in the UK Parliament.

I will move on to a question about consultation. We heard from our witnesses last week that they were consulted either late or not at all. As a committee, we wondered whether there is a culture of framework development happening before people are consulted and, if so, whether more should be done to engage with stakeholders and allow them to participate?

We will obviously pay close attention to the comments in the evidence that the committee has heard to check that we have got that right. However, stakeholder engagement is an important part of the framework development process.

In general terms, industry considered that the framework is supportive of business and that it will deliver consumer confidence in the process. However, only the stakeholders with a specific locus in the policy area were contacted. Some of the witnesses in last week’s evidence session had interests in other areas, such as organic food production and novel foods, and they would not have been contacted as part of this framework, because it does not cover those areas.

However, we pay close attention to the evidence that the committee receives and we will make sure that we have got the balance in the engagement process correct, because it is crucial that we bring the frameworks forward in collaboration with our stakeholders.

Is it correct that you will consult on the most recent version of the framework?

Yes, I think so. We have consulted in general, wider terms as well, to help to influence our discussions with UK partners.

Finally, can you outline the interplay between the framework and the accompanying concordat?

The concordat is an agreement between ministers about the high-level process and principles that will apply for matters that are in scope. It covers approaches to communication between parties, as well as setting out escalation procedures. The framework outline follows a common template and provides answers to more detailed operational aspects. The concordat is at the higher level and the framework provides more detail and has essentially been used as a tool for developing the form of high-level arrangements that are set out in the concordat.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does. I wanted to understand how changes to one will affect the other, and what you have said is helpful.

Good morning, minister. The nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards framework is one of a number of frameworks across food and nutrition policy; there are also frameworks on food and feed safety and hygiene and food compositional standards and labelling. There is quite a lot for us to go through. Is it possible to find a competent way to move forward that would also make it simpler for the committee and others who are involved to go through this mire of legislation?

We are doing our best. We are clear that the committee’s work is crucial to the whole process, and it is important that we share as much as we can with you.

One point to remember is that the frameworks themselves are policy neutral and build on established ways of working across Government. Provided that the principles that are committed to in them are adhered to, most of the concerns should be mitigated. It is important that all four Administrations adhere to the principles. However, we should remember that, overall, the framework is not about changing policy now but about how we can look at making changes in the future while respecting the importance of the devolved settlements across these islands.

On that point, there is a difference of opinion between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. The latter wants to legislate on much of the framework, whereas you do not believe that that is necessary. Can you talk me through that?

The approach to the framework has been one of the most collaborative approaches across the four Administrations, so I do not want to put words in the UK Government’s mouth; it would be for the UK Government to answer that. As far as I am aware, neither the UK Government nor FSS officials have identified any areas in which legislative underpinning would be required to deliver a framework that meets the principles for its development that were agreed back in 2017.

However, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill takes the matter to a different place, and there are real challenges there. The provisions in the bill suggest that standards that are set by the UK Government would apply in Scotland, irrespective of any recommendations that are made under the frameworks. Everything in the framework fits with all the principles of respecting devolution, but the internal market bill drives a coach and horses through that, so there are huge concerns about it.

With regard to what we are discussing today, we are content that the process is robust and respects the different devolved arrangements.

The internal market bill is a concern for us all. Nevertheless, is it important that the consumer understands the new system before implementation? Should we ensure that, when we move forward, people understand the system and have an opportunity to engage with it?

I go back to my point that the framework is, and should be, policy neutral. Changes to policy and regulations should be undertaken with care, but the framework is policy neutral. In the future, there could be changes coming underneath that; it is important that they get proper scrutiny, and the framework supports that process.

10:30  

Good morning again, everybody. I am interested in discussing some issues around the Northern Ireland protocol and interoperability with it. It has been noted that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

“includes broader Market Access Principles, which would mean that irrespective of the policy determinations made in this framework, Ministerial decisions taken in each GB country would only be binding on the products produced in those countries”.

Last week, we heard testimony from the Food and Drink Federation Scotland that many food and drink businesses will halt exports to Northern Ireland for the months following 31 December. Do you have any concerns as to the interoperability of the framework and the Northern Ireland protocol? How would you reassure businesses?

Matters relating to trade do not fall within my brief, and it would be difficult to offer any reassurances to business in current circumstances. Everything to do with the EU exit has been challenging and unpredictable. Even in our worst nightmares, we would not have expected to be here, at this stage, discussing these frameworks without knowing what the final settlement and the arrangements for trade will be. That is a real challenge for industry.

The framework before us is a four-country agreement which, hopefully, gives people in industry in particular some reassurance that we are seeking to develop consistent approaches. EU legislation will continue to apply on the specific matters relating to Northern Ireland. The interface with EU regulations in Northern Ireland means that we will all have to consider our approaches on a four-country basis.

I know that stability for our businesses is something that we absolutely aspire to and support. There are about 24 days to go until the end of the EU transition period. In the back of my mind, I am always wondering whether we are or will be ready for it. Last week, I read a report that stated:

“A 21-month adjustment period has been proposed for goods placed on the market in GB to reduce the impact of the change in requirements for identification marks taking the deadline for compliance to 30 September 2022.”

That might allow businesses a bit of time to prepare for the labelling changes requirements. Can you update the committee on that, and can you explain how that might link to the common frameworks that are before us?

The point about stability is a very important one. The requirement for health and identification marks is set out in food hygiene regulations. That subject comes under the framework for food and feed safety and hygiene rather than the one that is before us, but that provision, which allows businesses to continue to place goods with existing “EC” marks on the GB market, is a transition measure. It ensures that those goods would not be rendered useless, and it keeps them legal until September 2022, as the member said. That is an entirely pragmatic approach, and it is in line with the member’s starting point about providing some stability.

Would any of the proposals in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill conflict with or constrain the effect of the framework or the ability to action it? I am concerned about some aspects of the bill.

Any framework covering the setting of standards in relation to goods, including food, is affected by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The Scottish Government sees the bill as the biggest threat to devolution since 1999, and we will vigorously oppose it at every turn. It is fundamentally inconsistent with devolution, as it aims to centralise control in the UK Government and the UK Parliament, and to cut across devolved powers by imposing new domestic constraints. It is unnecessary, because common frameworks address any domestic market issues that might arise as a consequence of EU exit. The Scottish Government will support common frameworks when they are in Scotland’s interests and when they are agreed but not when they are imposed.

Good morning, minister. Earlier in the meeting, I asked my question at the wrong point. I now want to pick up on the issue of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the common framework. Your reply to the committee’s letter said that the common framework is “fit for purpose”, which is excellent. It has been raised with the UK Government that there are some concerns, and I note that you said in your letter that you were still awaiting a “satisfactory answer”. Will you provide an update on that? Have you had a satisfactory answer to the concerns that you raised in your letter to the UK Government?

Unfortunately, the situation is exactly the opposite. As I have made clear today, the bill is not good. It does not respect devolution and it threatens the powers of the Scottish Parliament and your committee to influence decisions. I am disappointed about the update that I must provide you with because, last night, the House of Commons reinstated all the changes that were made to the bill by the House of Lords, some of which would have given primacy to the frameworks. As I understand it, those changes were all removed by the House of Commons, although I have not yet had a full report of what was agreed. Everything that was done in the House of Lords to mitigate the bill was welcome, but the House of Commons reversed all the potentially positive changes to the bill and returned it to being a piece of legislation that is a serious threat to the devolution settlement. As I said, it is also unnecessary because, if the framework were operationalised, it would be able to deal with the issues that the UK Government is trying to deal with through the bill.

That leads me to another question that I want to ask. Should the bill, which breaks international law, be amended to give primacy to the common frameworks? Would that be possible?

Our starting point is that the bill is not necessary. The amendments giving primacy to the frameworks that were passed by the House of Lords would have made it better, so I was hugely disappointed to hear that those amendments were reversed by the House of Commons.

The bill will be like a ping-pong ball as it goes back and forth between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Following what happened last night and considering any deal that might still be made, what is your assessment of whether the common frameworks and partnerships with the European Union will be constrained? Will what has happened constrain this framework or any other policy areas that you are developing?

We would be in a far better position if we were sitting here agreeing the framework and we knew whether there was a deal or no deal and what the details of the arrangements would be. However, the intention was always that the framework would be amended before being applied post-transition in order to accommodate whatever the circumstances around the deal would be. That remains the case.

Another point to remember is that the framework is not required for day 1—not having it then will not be a particular issue. The framework is about ways of working after the transition period ends, irrespective of the deal that is in place. I return to the comment that none of us expected to reach this point without having more clarity.

The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, which is going through Parliament, introduces the keeping pace principle. How will the Scottish Government apply that principle to the common framework that we are discussing and other frameworks?

I touched on the fact that the framework is a four-countries agreement and is intended to drive consistent approaches across these islands while acknowledging policy divergence. Any changes to EU law will require to be considered through the framework, given that EU law will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government has set out our view that the law in Scotland should be aligned with EU law when such alignment would be appropriate and in Scotland’s best interests. Northern Ireland’s position means that such issues must be considered under the framework.

The situation is difficult—I understand. You mentioned EU law and the Northern Ireland protocol. Who will have responsibility for monitoring changes in regulation and practice in relation to the framework? Who will oversee how that affects Scots law and practice?

No changes to how laws are made will arise from the framework. When changes to EU law happen, changes will be made by Scottish statutory instrument or by UK instrument, if the Scottish Parliament consents. That should not change on the basis of the framework. Provisions for making changes to retained EU law are in the UK fixing legislation.

Last week, we heard concerns from the food and drink industry, which Emma Harper touched on. The industry is concerned about workforce capacity issues for regulators—the minister mentioned that in replying to the convener—particularly in local authorities and Food Standards Scotland. Will you reassure the committee that Scotland will not be badly affected by a lack of resources in local authorities and Food Standards Scotland, which concern was expressed about?

Unfortunately, I cannot give reassurances about Brexit’s impact on Scotland more generally, but I am acutely aware that new demands—for example, to provide export health certification, which Emma Harper mentioned—will bring increased pressures.

I am advised that FSS is recruiting and expects to be in a positive position to deliver its statutory requirements on excess, but we must be alert to the fact that a large number of official veterinarians who work in meat plants are EU nationals. Changes to immigration rules could make recruitment and staff retention difficult. We have repeatedly made such points to the UK Government, but we will nevertheless try to mitigate the situation.

Official veterinarians undertake a particular training programme, and most such veterinarians who work in the UK have been trained in Europe. We must continue to be alert to that challenge.

10:45  

I have a follow-up question on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I appreciate that strong views are held on the issue, and it will not surprise you that I take a different view from you, minister. That aside, it is likely that the bill will pass through Parliament and become law, whether amended or in its current state. Given that fact, what is the Scottish Government’s view as to how the bill will interrelate with the common framework?

As I said, we are really concerned that, as it stands, the bill drives a horse and coaches through the framework. The frameworks have been developed in a collaborative way across the four nations. As long as they are allowed to function as intended and as agreed, respecting devolution, the frameworks are really robust. That is why there is actually no need for the bill that is going through Westminster.

As I said, amendments were agreed to in the House of Lords that softened the bill’s challenge to devolution but, as I understand it, those were all reversed last night. We all know that parliamentary processes can be complex, so UK ministers might be considering further amendments to the bill that will respect those issues—I certainly hope so. As I said, the drafting of the frameworks and, in particular, the one that we are talking about, which I have most knowledge of, has been a collaborative process across the four nations. That is the strength of the framework.

I am glad to hear about that collaborative work.

Let us turn to the role of the Scottish Parliament in implementing and monitoring the common framework. What is the most useful role that the Scottish Parliament can play, and how should we measure the success of the framework?

As I said in answer to a question from the convener, effective parliamentary scrutiny is an essential element. Pre and post-implementation monitoring of all the common frameworks is essential. For example, the operation of dispute resolution mechanisms and any issues that are identified will be an essential element of the scrutiny process, which is important for us all.

On success, our focus in the first instance will be on trying to ensure that public health remains protected and that there is no diminution of standards once we leave the EU. I guess that that is the really important or top measure of the success of the framework.

Do you have any thoughts on what would be useful trigger points to allow for parliamentary scrutiny? For example, a House of Lords committee has suggested that the annual report of the activities of the NLCS policy group might be a moment at which Scottish parliamentary scrutiny kicks in. Would that be a typical event that might trigger scrutiny?

Scottish Government officials are still working with parliamentary officials on pre and post-implementation scrutiny across the frameworks. For this framework, there will be an annual report, which, as you say, might be an appropriate starting point for the committee. In principle, the answer is yes, but I understand that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes between our officials and the Parliament officials to ensure that the scrutiny is as robust as it should be.

Indeed.

Finally, when and how do you expect legislation to flow from the framework?

Most likely, it will be triggered by industry, through submission of health claims. That is most likely to be the thing that will trigger applications. Another trigger might be consideration by the UK nutrition and health claims committee.

I do not know whether Sam McKeown or Euan Page wants to add anything to that.

I can confirm what the minister has said. The trigger points will mainly be when applications come in for the authorisation of new health claims. That will probably be the first area. If amendments were triggered by changes in technology and science or developments in public health, those would initiate our normal policy process.

Given that there is a process to go through when we do risk assessment and risk management in such areas, we do not expect any legislation to be introduced for at least three or four months—maybe not for six months. That will give us time to carry out those processes. We will consider the best and most efficient way of doing things. We might make changes to the instruments quarterly, rather than as and when they happen, to try to make the process more efficient for everyone.

Good morning. My questions are about the implementation of the framework and what its impact will be. When we legislate, we sometimes forget about the impact on individuals and the people whom we represent. The minister and I are very keen on improving the health of individuals and the nation. The framework covers nutrition claims, health claims, food for specific groups, food supplements and so on. Where are the opportunities in the common framework that will help the Government to improve the health of individuals in Scotland? As an addendum to that, how can the framework be utilised in relation to the good food nation policy that we are waiting for?

As I have said, the framework is policy neutral. Any changes to the law need to be considered through the wider prism of the Government’s aims in relation to the issues in which Mr Whittle and I share an interest and the good food nation policy. The framework allows us to discuss with the other UK Administrations and legislatures how any changes that we choose to make would impact across the piece.

To be fair, on most of the issues relating to the health agenda in which Mr Whittle and I share an interest, there is already very good collaboration and discussion, as well as the sharing of best practice and longer-term aims. I have relatively frequent discussions with my counterpart at Westminster, Jo Churchill, on such matters. As is always the case for myself and Mr Whittle, those are never matters for party politics, as such; it is about using legislation to make a difference to people’s lives.

I completely agree that the health of the nation is not a matter for party politics. We have discussed in Parliament the good food nation policy, which has been coming for a while, so I am particularly interested in how the legislative framework sits across the top of that policy. Will particular issues arise for the food and drink sector in Scotland as a result of the proposed arrangements? If so, how will they be mitigated?

The framework, in and of itself, should not cause issues for industry. We will continue to actively seek the views of those who would be affected by potential changes in law and policy. The decision-making process is at the heart of the framework, because we want to ensure that that process is transparent. The framework might give industry some reassurance in knowing that a process is in place whereby, when we make changes in the Scottish Parliament, we are cognisant of issues elsewhere in these islands.

The minister will be aware that we took evidence from Professor Paul Haggarty last week. With regard to dietary reference values, which the minister will know are used in the labelling of foods, he said that the description in the text is ambiguous. Does the minister agree with that?

The nutritional aspects of the general food labelling rules are included in the scope of this framework and will be retained in GB law, ensuring that the status quo is maintained from day 1. However, we will look again at the scope’s wording to see whether there needs to be further clarity. As I said earlier, we have listened carefully to all the committee’s deliberations and to Mr Haggarty’s comments on the matter.

In the light of the evidence that we heard last week, that would be useful.

Professor Haggarty stated in evidence that he was concerned about the omission of novel foods. For those who are listening, I would define novel foods as foods that do not have a significant history of consumption in the UK. Can the minister address those concerns?

First, I apologise to Professor Haggarty for not giving him his correct title.

The category of novel foods falls within the scope of the common framework on food and feed safety and hygiene, which will also come before the committee for scrutiny. That is why it is not in this framework. I hope that that answers the question.

What would be the timescale for that?

I think that that framework is with the committee.

Yes, it is. It has arrived, but we have not yet considered it as a committee. It is a matter for future business.

I will bear that in mind when we are considering that particular framework.

I have two further questions. What role has the Scottish Government played in the establishment of the new UK nutrition and health claims committee?

The recruitment process for the scientific experts was conducted by Public Health England, as members will be aware. That took place at the end of 2018 in preparation for a no-deal exit, which obviously did not happen at that time. Policy officials in all the devolved Administrations were involved in the process as part of the development of the framework and the consideration of procedures for risk analysis and decision making.

Although a no-deal Brexit did not happen, panel members were initially appointed in February 2019 but stayed in the background in case the committee was needed. Members were then formally announced in October.

Policy officials from each of the four nations will have observer status at the committee’s meetings, and we have been involved since its inception, in 2018.

I am sure that the minister will join me in welcoming the Scottish representative, Professor Harry McArdle, deputy director of the Rowett institute. That is an observation, rather than a question.

How, generally, will Scottish scientific expertise feed into the on-going assessments around the categories of food and additives that are contained in the framework?

The committee would publish its scientific opinion. At that point, there would be a one-month statutory consultation. The policy group, risk management assessment and recommendations would be informed by that scientific opinion. If it was a substantive matter rather than a technical one, the evidence from the scientific opinion would go to the FSS board, which would then present recommendations to ministers for decision.

I have perhaps put that in a slightly convoluted way, but I hope that that answers your question.

Emma Harper has a brief supplementary question.

11:00  

Thank you for letting me come in, convener. On the back of Dave Stewart’s question, I have a question about novel foods. I read recently that laboratory-grown chicken is being served in a restaurant in Israel and one in Singapore. Will the issue of novel foods be included in future frameworks?

As we have said, it will not be included in the current framework. Lab-grown chicken meat is outside any of the briefings that I have had, but I have now had a hint of one of the questions that you will ask me when the next framework comes forward.

We look forward to that discussion. I now call David Torrance.

Thank you, convener. On the nutrition and health claims process, are you reassured that the role of scientific evaluation is adequately catered for in the proposed process for assessing nutrition and health claims and for requests related to the other categories of vitamins, minerals, food supplements and foods for specific groups?

Yes. Our scientific community and the UK scientific committees have that role. They provide technical advice on a range of matters, and it is absolutely appropriate to assume that that will be a robust assessment, which will help us to make policy decisions.

George Adam has a question.

Thank you, convener. Last week, I asked stakeholders a question about the nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards policy group, and they said that there was a need for expertise on that group. How is the Scottish Government ensuring that we get that expertise?

That is important, but, as I said, that has happened and there was an open and transparent recruitment process for scientific experts. Although that process, which took place in 2018, was led by Public Health England, it involved officials from the Scottish Government—or, rather, Food Standards Scotland. The group’s role is hugely important. There has always been a concern that one of the unintended consequences of Brexit—Dave Stewart has raised this in numerous other fora—will be an impact on scientific skills and the ability of scientists to move and collaborate across Europe. That is one of the challenges, but it was an open and transparent recruitment process.

George Adam, are you happy with that answer?

Yes, thank you.

Finally, minister, we have heard evidence that the dispute resolution mechanism does not provide a specific role for the Scottish Parliament and that the process does not encompass all the devolved Administrations. What is the Government’s view on the dispute resolution process and Parliament’s involvement?

Dispute resolution is intended to be a four-nations approach, with equity between parties, notwithstanding the particular issues that relate to the Northern Ireland protocol. It is largely a matter for disputes between Administrations, so disputes should be resolved before measures are laid in Parliament. However, the laying of legislation in one Parliament before a dispute had been resolved and legislation had been laid in another would constitute a breakdown of the framework process. If that were to happen in relation to the Scottish Parliament, I know that this committee and others would look at that very seriously.

It is probably worth highlighting that the framework refers to the secretary of state taking the final decision in a dispute, but the published wording does not accord with the wording that has been agreed, and I understand that that will be rectified before the final text is agreed. From what has been published, it might look as though there is a particular final role for the secretary of state, but that has not been agreed.

To be clear, are there any other changes of substance in the final text that are not in the framework that we have seen?

If there is anything else of any substance, we will obviously ensure that we alert the committee to that. We will write to the committee as soon as we are aware of anything.

I thank the minister and his officials for their attendance, which has been very helpful in our continuing consideration. We will consider further what has been said later in the meeting.