Chamber and committees

Sarah Boyack asked quite a number of questions there, which is right and proper. I signal to colleagues that, if they want to add anything at the end of what I say, that might be helpful in getting an insight into process points.

I do not disagree with the assessment of the head of the Northern Ireland civil service. This is massive and untenable; that is the scale of what we are dealing with. I do not want to minimise any of it. We have a difficult balance to strike, as does the committee, to ensure that we get through the process—however we get into the nuts and bolts of it—while ensuring that we maintain all the safeguards and protections across this critical range of subjects. One area of evidence that you heard about related to biosecurity, which comes in addition to all the other areas of concern that we are talking about. We will have to get to grips with understanding all these areas of regulation and safeguards. I prefer the use of the word “safeguards” because, largely, that is what they are. They safeguard us as consumers, citizens and so on. We have to do that in a way that will enable us to turn it around in less than a year.

What do we imagine the process is? We have tried to stop it and to amend it. We are trying to use the devolution settlement through the Sewel convention to protect Scotland by stopping the bill proceeding in its current form. However, if the UK Government is going to disregard the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and public opinion on this, we will have to work exceptionally hard to be involved in the process. I hear regularly from civil servants that they have good working relations with colleagues. That is not always the case, but they often have the professional relationship that you would hope that they would have with colleagues in UK Government departments.

Are there discussions across different parts of the Scottish Government with different parts or departments of the UK Government? Yes, absolutely. Do we have a full insight into where different UK Government departments are in their assessment of retained EU law as that pertains to different departmental areas of responsibility? We definitely do not have full insight of that. We have asked, but it has not been provided. There are examples of legislation that has been shared when there has been a thought that it is of import, but the situation is not where we need to be across the piece. The heavy lifting in this early phase will be civil service to civil service.

Do we talk about this politician to politician when we have bilateral meetings? Well, the point there is whether—not when—we have bilateral meetings. From evidence to a UK Parliament committee this week, I was reminded that a senior UK Government minister had not yet met her Scottish Government opposite number—nor had her predecessor ever done so—and she could not even name who her opposite number is. That is how bad relations are with the UK Government. Will I use every and any opportunity that I can to make all these points? Yes, absolutely, but there is a tin ear and an unwillingness to deal with things, despite their importance. Given where we are, will we seek to have more interaction on things? Yes, we will, with both the UK Government and other devolved Administrations, so that we can share the burden of all this.

On the specifics of where we are with departmental appeals for lists and how that will be taken forward, I will ask colleagues—perhaps Elliot Robertson—to pitch in.

I have said a number of times in evidence to the committee that I have a long experience as a parliamentarian in having responsibility for scrutinising European legislation, having served on the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee for 10 years. I understand how important it is that parliamentarians are able to do their job and ensure that they understand proposals and what their impact will be, and how important it is to ensure that Parliament, whether in committee or as a whole in the chamber, is appropriately involved in the process. That is my default position.

We will have to consider how the process for the bill is managed, on the basis of an understanding of the legislation that is involved and the form in which that will be protected in law in Scotland, which no doubt will be through the usual channels for legislation going through the Scottish Parliament. I give Sarah Boyack and committee members the assurance that I am extremely committed to ensuring that the committee is able to do its job, even if just—it should not just be this—from this particular point of view, given everything that I have said about capacity. The more people who have an interest in and understanding of how big a challenge this is and who take evidence that is able to shine light into different policy areas, the better. We are literally in this together. That is how the Parliament was conceived as working: parliamentary committees working with Government on things such as this. That is another reason, in addition to many others, for you having the best understanding of what needs to be done and the stage at which that will happen and being able to play your part in that.

As soon as there is anything concrete with which I can come back to you, convener, I will do so, and I know that there are on-going discussions between my officials and your clerks. I have been very clear with my colleagues that that is the approach that I want to be taken. I know that there have been views from the committee about how, before the REUL bill approach, we would have managed maintaining alignment with European Union legislation in a post-Brexit world. I have paid close attention to the concerns of committee members to ensure that we have the best possible system in place. That is and has been an iterative process.

I had signalled that I was prepared for improvements to be made to that process, but we are in a totally different situation now. We can, of course, learn from how things were working prior to the proposals for the REUL bill, but we will now have to think anew about how we do all that as a Government and, no doubt, you will be thinking about how you wish to do that as a committee. However, I say to you very clearly that I want us to work together so that you can do your job and we can do our job. I hope that, between us, we can minimise the damage and the unnecessary and avoidable impact that that has on our parliamentary process and the Government’s legislative programme.

That is why this is an issue right across Government. As you might imagine with such a process, when an idea is mooted or there is proposed legislation, that usually starts off in the relevant Government department. In this case, I have responsibility in relation to European Union matters, so the matter falls within my orbit. However, as it has become clear that the bill is happening and we fear that the UK Government will disregard the Sewel convention, the issue is now being considered right across Government, because European Union retained legislation impacts in policy areas such as those that Sarah Boyack has mentioned.

On the hierarchy of priorities, safety is a really important consideration, but there are others, too, and those have been highlighted to the committee in evidence. As soon as I understand where there are particular risk factors, I am happy to share that with the committee so that you can satisfy yourselves that those are indeed the areas with highest risk. You may want to add to that. That is part of the process that I have signalled that I want to have so that we have a collegial relationship in this place, if not with another place.

At the moment, that is a known unknown. We have been going through a phase in which we have been trying to reduce the impact of the bill. We have been seeking its withdrawal and we have been seeking to make amendments that would carve out Scotland from the legislation, and that has been happening in only the last few weeks.

If one is thinking about what is coming down the tracks towards us if the UK Government disregards the Sewel convention and goes ahead, and what the resourcing implications of that are, without doubt there will be a massive and totally unnecessary amount of extra work that will fall on officials right across the Scottish Government. Will that require additional resource as we go through the process? We will have to work that out. I know that it will be a lot more work, and I would far rather that our talented, hard-working officials across Government were able to get on with what the Government has been elected to do and what we have asked them to get on with.

It is an issue that I have raised with colleagues. I was speaking with the Welsh Counsel General about it to understand what the Welsh Government is considering, and that dialogue will continue.

Are there ways in which we can burden share? That is part of the conversation that we are trying to have with the UK Government. It is the one that is initiating this, so it would be helpful if it provided us with full disclosure of all the work that it has been doing on the proposal, and it has not done so. What it has provided is partial—it is not enough.

Sorry, was there was a second question?

I may throw the microphone in a second—I am sorry, that was not a reference to ministers in other places throwing things, apparently. I will pass the microphone gently to Elliot Robertson to add anything on the specific issue of common frameworks, because that is important.

What is our understanding of how the UK Government thinks it might get through the process of dealing with legislation that is reserved, devolved and mixed? So far, I have given you evidence that interaction with UK Government ministers has been limited at best and that our officials are trying hard to work constructively with one another.

Does the UK Government see the common frameworks as a way in which it might be able to deal with some of the challenges? The answer is that it might well do. However, I observe that that is not what the common frameworks were intended for, and the issue of solving some of the problems of the process that we face next year is of an entirely different order. Quite apart from that, there is a further question. If the UK Government is doing a lot of the heavy lifting on the issue now and next month, do we really think that the common frameworks will operate within that timescale to remedy the issues that will be thrown up by the UK Government’s approach to devolved and mixed pieces of legislation?

That is a very technical and dry area, but it is really important if we want to understand who has responsibility, who will answer to Parliaments and to which Parliaments, and whether the positions of the Governments will be respected as part of the process.

Elliot, do you want to add anything more specifically on common frameworks?

I join you from Scotland House London, where I am holding meetings with the United Kingdom Government. Thank you for accommodating me by allowing me to join you remotely.

Today, we are focusing on the European Union and, in particular, on our report on how the Scottish Government is using the continuity act to protect and maintain the high standards that we enjoyed as a member state of the European Union. We are committed to remaining close to the EU and to building the strongest possible relationship between the EU and Scotland. It is important that we consider why that is.

Alignment is a point of principle and conviction. Scotland’s attachment to the European Union has been demonstrated at the ballot box time and time again. If the latest polls are to be believed, that desire to remain close to Europe is only increasing. The people of Scotland see what is at stake and understand the devastating effect that Brexit—and not just the calamitous litany of successive UK Governments—is having on the country. Above all, alignment is about protecting the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. Our standards, shared with and shaped by the EU, are among the most advanced in the world. They protect the environment, people’s working conditions, the safety and quality of the food that we eat and, as we will see, the water that we drink.

The Scottish Government’s policy of maintaining alignment with the EU where we can and where it makes sense to do so protects those standards. That can happen in several ways. The power under the continuity act that we are discussing today is only one such vehicle and only one part of the story. There are other legislative means or changes to non-legislative guidance, policy and programmes that can be made to provide for the standards that are enjoyed by people in Scotland.

I thank the committee for sharing the research that was carried out by Queen’s University Belfast in order to establish a potential baseline of EU legislation that has been passed since Scotland was forced to leave the European Union. We will carefully examine the research and the recommendations that have been made. However, I note that it is important to remember that Scotland’s approach to alignment is to align where possible and where it is in Scotland’s interests to do so. That requires careful consideration as to the extent and the method by which Scotland should align in order to achieve the outcomes that we share with the EU.

Where we align by legislation, as the committee will know, the Parliament has agreed our statement of policy to provide transparency in information in relevant policy notes and consultations. I am grateful that the civil service and parliamentary officials are discussing how that can be taken forward.

Alignment is not just about legislation and standards; it is about the vision that we share with the European Union for the continent’s future and its part in the world and on tackling the climate emergency, sustainable growth and supporting Ukraine—those are just some examples. The outcomes that our interventions support in consideration of alignment and the international dimension are an integral part of our approach to policy making.

The commitment to align is made all the more important by the devastating project that we see emerging from Westminster. We all need to weigh up what the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will mean. In its current form, it is less about taking back control from Brussels and more an attempt to dismantle the high standards that Scotland and the UK have enjoyed as a result of our former membership of the European Union—[Inaudible.]

I do not want to be cheeky by just saying yes—but my answer is yes. However, I stress to Mr Golden that, if there are areas where the committee wants more transparency or more understanding of the decision-making process, I am, as I have said a number of times now, prepared to actively consider those suggestions. I also hope that those are the matters that are being discussed between our officials.

You asked for brevity, convener, so the short answer to Mr Golden’s question is yes. We have a system that works, and we are finding our ways through it as best we can with regard to being transparent, but I am open to specific ways in which that can be improved.

I draw Ms Boyack’s attention to the report as published, which partly answers that question as it gives an example of where we do not intend to align. I drew attention to that in my opening statement.

The list of EU legislation that does not apply to Scotland because of geographical proximity or because it relates to specific regulations for industries or agriculture that have no direct impact whatsoever for Scotland illustrates why having an exhaustive list of regulations that do not apply is not an effective and efficient way forward for the Government, given the transparency that we are keen to deliver. You have just heard my colleague outline that.

On the point that people want to understand which regulations pertain in Scotland, if we use the example of electronic vehicles, people know exactly what the regulations in that area are in Scotland, so I am not entirely sure how we could proceed in a way that would satisfy Ms Boyack’s concern. I underline that, if there are better ways in which the process could be explained to the committee and, through it, to the Parliament, I am very open to our officials making suggestions about that and to taking them on board and introducing them if they are practical and proportionate.

First, I would not want the impression to be created that there is not a general position of wishing to remain aligned with the policy and initiatives of the European Union. That is the case. I could draw your attention to a whole series of examples from regulations on single-use plastics to food and feed safety, and I could go on. You have picked up on a particular issue that relates to building regulations and, I think, electric vehicle charging measures.

I signal to colleagues who are on the line that they may add anything that they wish on the subject after I have said what I have to say.

I will briefly address the specific point on the reference to the use of electric vehicle infrastructure regulations in the previous annual report. The Scottish Government did not consider using the powers for the relevant regulation over the period of that report. Consideration was made of using the power in relation to its potential application during the reporting year that has now ended. The implications of measures that are proposed in the EU legislation still need to be carefully considered in terms of the outcomes that they will support.

I think that we all understand that the pivot towards electric vehicles is very much an on-going situation. In this case, it was important to consider the evidence that was held in reaching a decision on our approach to EV charging, and aligning with the regulation in question would not have supported the outcome that is sought in the transposition timescale. We may seek to align at a later date and we are committed to keeping the matter under review.

As I have said to the committee a number of times, we are committed to remaining aligned in the broadest of senses, but specific measures will come forward that, for a number of technical reasons, may not need to be introduced in their entirety or at this time. We are not following a blanket alignment policy with 100 per cent transposition of everything, not least because many measures do not impact on Scotland in any way whatsoever.

That is my answer to Mr Cameron’s question. Are there any colleagues on the call who would like to add any technical insight into the particular regulation that Mr Cameron asked about?