Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is good to be back. The instrument before the committee is a technical one to update the devolved statute book for the new legal concept of assimilated law, which will become the new name for retained EU law under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The change takes effect at the end of the year and cannot be prevented; therefore, as a responsible Government, we want to ensure there is maximal clarity in devolved primary and secondary legislation.

This is the only Scottish statutory instrument laid by the Government under the REUL act to date and the Government has no plans to use REUL act powers to alter policy. The range of policy areas that the SSI touches on—from aquaculture and fisheries to waste management—shows the potential of the REUL act to affect the full panoply of devolved competences.

The committee’s recent report “How Devolution is Changing Post-EU” found that the REUL act, like the UK Internal Market Act 2020, represents

“a significant shift in the constitutional landscape”.

I assure members that the Government is treating the REUL act as such. We are committed to protecting devolved interests in the management of UK statutory instrument proposals, and where powers allow, and it is appropriate to do so, we will seek to legislate in this Parliament. That is why we have brought forward the SSI.

I wish to touch on the report that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee issued last week, which

“draws the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (e), in that there appears to be a doubt whether paragraph 3 of schedule 1 is intra vires.”

That paragraph amends the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 so that the phrase “EU obligation” becomes “assimilated obligation”. I note the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s position, but I remain of the view that all aspects of the SSI are within the enabling powers, and are good law, so I do not propose to withdraw and relay the instrument to exclude the necessary freedom of information amendments. Where out-of-date EU terminology stands on the statute book, it is appropriate that such cases are remedied and, here, an appropriate legislative vehicle was to hand.

I look forward to the committee’s questions on this technical subject. I am delighted to be joined by the two leading experts in the field, who will be able to answer any technical questions that you may have.