Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

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.

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hear, hear.

I will ask colleagues to follow up, but I will make a general point first. Imagine that we were in a parallel world where the REUL legislation, as it had previously been proposed, had gone through. We remember that the sunsetting arrangements had been brought in. No doubt were we still in that universe, we would have been sitting here talking about many, many SIs and SSIs. Now, at least, we are in the more fortunate position that we are not doing so.

There is a lot of reflection about those sorts of issues. It has been highlighted to me that there have been three recent cases where people have suggested that the matter may be relevant in relation to employment law or equality law or, indeed, in relation to Rwanda, which is quite current. However, it is not. Do David Maclennan or Greig Walker want to add anything on the specifics of the measure?

I am content with the statement that I outlined to the committee. Thank you, convener.

Motion moved,

That the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee recommends that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 [draft] be approved.—[Angus Robertson]

Motion agreed to.