Chamber and committees

I will move on to my contribution, because I am running out of time. My key points are about the keeping pace power and scrutiny.

The Scottish Government’s decision to align with EU law wherever possible is not without consequence. As the report notes, Professor Katy Hayward indicated

“that there is a lack of consideration in the Scottish Government’s policy statement on alignment with EU law regarding the practical consequences of alignment for Scottish producers”,

and that that is specifically the case

“for those exporting to England and Wales”.

The professor went on to discuss

“the economic impact of the UK Government’s intended divergence from EU laws in areas that are highly regulated and subject to detailed legislation in the EU, namely food safety, and plant and animal health.”

Professor Hayward’s view is

“that it should be made clear that the more its closest market diverges from the EU, the more difficulty there will be for Scotland if it seeks continued alignment with EU law.”

That is a key point. How do civic Scotland and other relevant stakeholders know where, how and when the Scottish Government is aligning or not, and why it is choosing to do that? That creates unnecessary uncertainty. Working to a different standard for production in Scotland may negatively impact businesses’ ability to compete in the UK internal market. That would cause severe damage to the Scottish economy and Scottish businesses, given that about 60 per cent of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK. Last year, the director of policy at NFU Scotland said:

“If we were just to pick up and paste into Scotland the EU’s current agricultural policy, that would be extremely detrimental to Scotland. That would stretch agricultural businesses to breaking point”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 December 2021; c 15-16.]

As things stand, there is only an annual requirement to inform Parliament of when the provision has been used, which makes its use difficult to scrutinise. It is worth recognising that, when the cabinet secretary gave evidence to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, he said that only one piece of EU legislation has been actively considered for alignment and that, in fact, the Scottish Government chose not to align. I think that we are entitled to question why the Scottish Government is pursuing the policy at all.

We also need to ensure that we have effective scrutiny. In its written evidence, the Public Law Project noted:

“A broad Henry VIII power for the UK Executive to make law in any area of former EU competence would be constitutionally inappropriate.”

I agree with the recommendation from the Institute for Government that the UK Government should share draft bills and legislation with the devolved Governments. We all desire Governments to work together constructively but, in order for them to do that, we must be prepared to enter negotiations with the willingness to compromise. Otherwise, we will end up with confusion and uncertainty. The Public Law Project also commented:

“the lack of scrutiny also produces poorer quality laws and policy.”

However, the SNP Government should be doing that in the Scottish Parliament as well. There are examples of the Scottish Government using Henry VIII powers, too, and what applies to the UK Government should also apply to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government must give the Scottish Parliament enough time to fulfil its oversight function, rather than rushing legislation through. The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is an example. Rushing things through does not allow us as parliamentarians to scrutinise things thoroughly.

I believe that it is in everyone’s best interests for all Governments to work together. The Scottish Government must work closely with the UK Government to ensure that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill works for Scotland. Despite our political differences, we must all work together for the benefit of the United Kingdom.

We need dialogue between the Governments, but I do not see that happening. It takes two to talk and two to come to the table and be constructive about making compromises and solving problems.

Thank you.

Brexit has definitely caused challenges. There will be opportunities, but I do not think that we have seen them yet. Both Governments must come together and talk. My colleague was talking about the negative narrative that we hear in the chamber. I have been here for a year and a half and, whenever we have portfolio questions, there is always negativity towards the UK Government. We must all work together to get solutions. We need solutions to Brexit.

I am not saying that there have been no challenges, but we must work together. We were elected for the people of Scotland. We should be solving the problems that are in our gift to solve in areas such as justice, education and health.

Creative Scotland has delayed its upcoming funding initiatives from 2023 to 2024 after what it called a “realistic prospect” of “serious” cuts by the Scottish Government. Clearly, that will affect venues such as the Tron theatre in Glasgow. What additional support will the Government provide for the sector to avoid other theatres closing their doors forever?

I want to look at data and outcomes and at ensuring that the actions that are being taken are achieving the outcomes that we desire. I refer to what Bill Scott said. It is about ensuring that every pound that we spend is well spent and that we are focusing money in the right areas. How can the Scottish Government and councils improve national and local data? How can we ensure that they fully capture and measure the impact of actions on outcomes?

Does Hanna McCulloch want to come in on that?

I am an MSP for South Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it can provide an update on the steps it is taking to encourage more general practitioners to work in rural practices. (S6O-01523)

Current recruitment strategies are clearly not working. In the rural area that I represent, GP practices have had to close as they were unable to recruit more GPs.

Other practices have stepped in, but they, too, are struggling due to recruitment issues and have to rely on expensive locum GPs. That situation is replicated across rural areas throughout Scotland. I ask the cabinet secretary not to repeat previous answers as we need something different. What more is the Scottish Government doing now to address rural GP recruitment issues? What incentives are there for doctors to specialise in general practice? How many additional places will be made available at Scottish universities to help fill future vacancies?

I will keep this question short. Would an announcement such as that normally have come through the cabinet secretary, a minister or Transport Scotland? Who would normally give you the proposal? Would it be a special adviser?

CMAL had strong objections to the high-profile announcement of the preferred bidder. Given that the contract negotiations were still under way, did you not think that it was inappropriate for you to make the announcement?