Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a very good question and we have to get the best possible answer to how we work our way through what is a new situation. I think that committee members understand that we are now dealing with a fundamentally different approach to retained EU law than we were dealing with even a few short weeks ago. It would be fair to say that we are going to have to satisfy ourselves that the processes meet the new circumstances that we find ourselves in. I would most certainly be happy to update the committee on how we propose to do that.

As you will have noticed from Greig Walker’s title of retained EU law management programme lead, an area of the Scottish Government is looking at that area in great detail across the piece. It is correct to say that some areas of ministerial responsibility have a much bigger focus on the issue, just because the corpus of European Union law is much more extensive in the areas of the environment, agriculture, fisheries and so on than in some other policy areas. How we will take this through the various directorates of the Scottish Government is definitely something that we will have to be focused on as we get greater clarity.

It goes without stressing at great length that we are talking about legislation that has been fundamentally changed during its course through the parliamentary process at Westminster and has not yet been finalised. We are absolutely aware that we are going to have to react to that legislation in its final form. It is going to be a serious administrative challenge. We are going to have to build in appropriate mechanisms for the reasons that Mark Ruskell has outlined, to make sure that there is co-ordination between Government ministers. As I have said during this evidence session, the important role of the Parliament is then in understanding the process.

We are, of course, not talking about the introduction of new legislation in the sense of novel legal requirements. We are talking about the maintenance of existing European Union law, but Mark Ruskell is absolutely right to point to the mechanism by which we can ensure that Government goes through what will be a new process to ensure that we retain the laws and safeguards that we wish because we want to remain aligned and, as a consequence, how we are best able to integrate that process into the wider parliamentary programme and, in particular, the committee’s role in scrutinising my work and that of colleagues in this policy area.

First, welcome to the committee, Mr Bibby. You might not be aware but, in previous evidence sessions, I have said to the committee—and I am happy to say again today—that I am open to ensuring that we have the best reporting requirements that are commensurate with proposals that the Government is dealing with. Having sat for 10 years on the European Scrutiny Committee, I understand the importance of the work and want your committee to be able to fulfil its obligations.

What is important from my point of view is that we are in the process of updating our approach of reporting to the committee in relation to European Union alignment. The two things—retained EU law and European Union alignment—are areas in which we can integrate the process.

As has been the case until now, I am still perfectly content for committee officials and Scottish Government officials to work together on how we can do that best, because I totally appreciate the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of committee members, and I understand that they want to have the most up-to-date information that they can about such issues.

This is a work in progress, and I am perfectly content to have suggestions from Mr Bibby, any other committee member or the committee as a whole about how we can best update you.

The best co-operation that we have had was with members of the House of Lords who are concerned about the UK Government’s proposals, because—as is often the case with ping-pong scenarios—proposals are made at quite short notice and the ability to influence how they are debated and voted on in the House of Lords is often quite an immediate issue.

I certainly never got the impression that the UK Government had the interests of devolved Administrations as a high priority in the process. If it had, it would not have proposed the legislation as it was drafted. It also intended to carry on regardless of legislative consent being withheld on the unamended bill.

The UK Government has gone on to make its concessions in relation to what is known as the cliff edge—the throwing all the babies out with the bath water approach—which was what it intended to do in the first place, and it turned the process on its head by listing pieces of legislation that it wishes to see fall off the statute book. That was a late change, and we were not consulted on it. I am sure that the UK Government would probably say that the Scottish Government’s views and opposition to its original approach had already been articulated. I have seen correspondence that says that the UK Government has partly acted on the concerns of the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government in relation to the REUL bill.

On how the UK Government moved on to the next step of the process, we were informed on a Friday about the changes in relation to seeking legislative consent. Then, on the Monday, the UK Government confirmed from the dispatch box in the House of Lords that it would carry on regardless. That drives a coach and horses through how the Sewel convention is supposed to work. How on earth is the Scottish Parliament, whether it be committees or plenary, or the Scottish Government supposed to have time to consider a proposal about legislative consent from the UK Government over a weekend when no notice was given that it would carry on regardless on the Monday?

None of that speaks to devolved custom or practice operating in any meaningful and respectful sense. On the one hand, it is an improvement that the REUL bill will not sunset a great amount of legislation in the way that was originally planned, but, on the other hand, we know that the UK Government still plans to take more than 500 pieces of legislation off the statute book by the end of this year.

Scottish Government experts have been able to identify nine pieces of legislation that still have an impact in Scotland, but there is little prospect of us having the ability to have those pieces of legislation taken out of the updated REUL bill.

I am delighted to rejoin the committee for the third time. Forgive me, I am not sure at what point I dropped off. I will just give a short reprise of what I was saying to Mark Ruskell’s question.

My first reflection was that we are very actively considering how we will progress within Government the best understanding of what measures need to be taken to remain aligned with European Union legislation.

The second part of Mr Ruskell’s question was on the risk of the UK Government using the UK Internal Market Act 2020 to block the aspirations of the Scottish Government and Parliament to remain aligned with European Union legislation. He asked whether that was a significant fear that I share, to which the answer was yes, it absolutely is, because, if we look at the UK Government’s recent approach on a range of issues, from the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill to the deposit return scheme, we can see that it is prepared to consider a range of ways in which it can frustrate, block, delay and undermine progress in devolved areas of responsibility.

As the committee will be aware, a significant proportion of retained EU law does not fall neatly into a basket of devolved and reserved areas, so if those are pieces of legislation for which there is shared responsibility in a UK legislative setting, the question is whether I am confident that the UK Government would act in best faith so that Scotland could remain aligned with European Union standards while the UK sought to diverge from them. I have to say that I have grave concerns that the UK Government plans to develop and continue its interventionist approach in devolved areas. That will make it more difficult for us to retain the higher standard of European Union legislation and safeguards that we intend to pursue. However, pursue it we will.

That is a very good question to end on, as a takeaway for me and my colleagues. Given the new circumstances in which we find ourselves with the UK Government’s new approach to the legislation and its intentions in dealing with retained EU law, we are in a different environment regarding how we might be able to integrate the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of third sector and other organisations with a particular policy locus. Obviously, and in parallel, that also applies to parliamentary colleagues and specific committees.

As the cabinet secretary with responsibility in the area, I definitely want to be satisfied that, however we move forward after the passage of this legislation, we can do so in a way that integrates the expertise and understanding of organisations that have an interest in particular policy areas—Mark Ruskell mentioned one of those earlier. We want to ensure that Scotland remains aligned with the legislation, values and better standards of the European Union, to which the Scottish Government and the majority of members of the Scottish Parliament still remain committed.

With a bit of luck, you will be able to hear me. Are people nodding? I see that the convener is giving me the thumbs up.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I am sorry that I am not able to join you in person—I am in Brussels promoting major events in Scotland, including the world championships that are taking place later this year.

This morning’s evidence session is an opportunity to update the committee on our response to the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. You will know that the UK Government has finally seen sense and has scrapped its plans to automatically remove thousands of EU laws from the UK statute book by the end of this year. However, let us be clear that the fundamentals of the bill have not changed. I draw the committee’s attention to three particular issues.

First, the bill continues to put at risk vital protections that have been enjoyed by the people of Scotland for almost 50 years. Although the automatic sunset has gone, the UK Government is still planning to scrap almost 600 pieces of retained EU law by the end of December, while the rest of the laws remain in the scope of the UK Government’s reform and deregulation agenda. My officials received a list of those 600 laws only three weeks ago. At least nine of them are a cause of real concern. I have no confidence—zero confidence—that the UK Government will agree to their removal from the bill before it is given royal assent, which can only be a few weeks away. Officials are considering how best to provide information on the list to the Parliament.

Secondly, UK ministers remain empowered to act in devolved areas, without—[Inaudible.]

Thirdly, the amendments to the bill clearly triggered the legislative consent requirement on Friday 19 May. I received a letter from minister Ghani asking for that consent. However, by Monday 22 May—that is, one working day later—the UK Government had decided to proceed without it.

My officials continue to assess the long-term policy implications of the bill. I reassure you, convener, and your committee colleagues that I want to maintain an open dialogue with the committee as we make progress on that. I am happy to take questions.

Convener, forgive me if I am repeating anything that you have already heard, I do not know the point at which I was cut off.

I was reflecting on the fact that not only do common frameworks play a role in intergovernmental relations in the UK but there is also the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which was legislated subsequently and is, in many respects, trumping the common frameworks approach to things.

I was also reflecting on the fact that, before the 2020 act, I could easily have imagined a Scottish Government proposal about the introduction of minimum unit pricing for alcohol, for example, making its way through the common frameworks process. However, the UK Government would now be far more likely to invoke the 2020 act in such situations, as it is effectively doing in relation to the proposals for a deposit return scheme—by including glass and using that to block progress.

One cannot look at common frameworks in isolation from how the 2020 act can work and how the UK Government chooses to use it to block policy proposals in devolved areas.

You can see on the screen that I am joined by Chris Nicholson, Greig Walker and Elliot Robertson. They are colleagues of mine and they advise on these issues. I will make some general observations about your question, Mr Cameron, and then ask whether any of my colleagues want to add their comments.

The list of nine laws that include devolved competence that we believe might still be operable in some way are areas for which further consideration is needed. Some might be of more import and some less, but the fact that they have an impact on areas of devolved responsibility and are currently operating is beyond doubt.

We have raised concerns with the UK Government about those laws, which include energy efficiency regulations, port services regulations and other things, but it is our understanding that the schedule will not be amended prior to royal consent, which is anticipated in June.

Part of the challenge that we face is that the UK is extremely keen to pass the bill extremely quickly, notwithstanding its major change in approach, so our ability to play a significant role in the process is much diminished. We remain in close contact with the UK Government on the issue, but it is fair to say that there is no expectation of the schedule being amended prior to royal assent.

Would any of my colleagues on the call wish to add any observations with regard to the list of nine items and our ability to influence the process in that respect at Westminster?

I am indeed.

That relates to how the question of how the Scottish Government can manage the alignment process with retained EU law that we wish to see maintained on the Scottish statute books when a United Kingdom Government might not be minded to look sympathetically at Scotland remaining aligned with higher European standards in any given policy area. I have to say that, given the current approach of the UK Government, I would be very concerned that it will look to involve itself in decision making in policy areas that are devolved using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 as a mechanism to, in effect, disregard the priorities of the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.

There are two elements to Mark Ruskell’s question. First, what does the Scottish Government need to do to ensure that it remains aligned with European Union legislation after the passage of the bill and the new approach in it? As I reflected in my previous answer, we are currently working through that. Secondly, what is my assessment of how the United Kingdom Government will act in relation to our preferred policy priority, which is to remain aligned with European Union standards where the UK Government’s avowed position in many respects is to become non-aligned with them? It wishes to diverge from European Union standards and, as we have seen in other policy areas, would be unhappy for Scotland to do—[Inaudible.]