Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

With the greatest respect, the procedure is clear, in as much as we report to Parliament as part of our legislative process. I am back in front of the committee and we are engaged in an on-going process of seeing whether there are specific ways in which we can provide increased transparency and satisfy committee members’ demands—which I appreciate, having sat in their position doing exactly the same job in the United Kingdom Parliament.

I will definitely reflect on how we can ensure that, if there are major proposals that may have relevance to Scotland and we have decided for whatever reason that legislation is not required to be aligned, that information can be shared. Maybe that is a part of the process that our committee officials and Scottish Government colleagues need to address directly.

I am not aware of anything crossing my desk where a decision not to align through the adoption of policy or legislation has not been reported. Were there to be such a case, I would want to make sure that people were properly informed of it. I will take that question away to reflect on and will make sure that what happens is, in fact, what I believe to be current custom and practice.

Most committee members will agree that, sometimes, such issues can seem a bit dry and distant and that they do not impact on us that much—notwithstanding, of course, the fact that we are beginning to look at regulations that impact on the likes of drinking water, which affects us all. However, there is a world of difference between the process of understanding specific and on-going new proposals emanating from the European Union and a process that could potentially see the cliff edge—which is political language for “the end”—of legislation that has been a part of European Union membership over the past 47 years. It is of a qualitative magnitude and a scale so much bigger than that of dealing with the month-to-month proposals that currently come out of EU institutions.

Perhaps through you, convener, and the committee, I should say to anybody and everybody who knows and understands the importance of European Union legislation and the high standards and safeguards that it has provided to us all, that we really need to wake up and smell the coffee about what is coming towards us with this proposal from the UK Government. We will have to think very clearly about how we marshal the needs, interests, concerns and expectations of citizens and stakeholders to ensure that, as we go through the process, we are able to protect everything that we would wish to protect. That is certainly the ambition of the Scottish Government, and I imagine that that will be the case for committee members, too.

These things currently operate through a central team in the Scottish Government’s directorate of external affairs, which works closely with Scotland house in Brussels and Scottish Government lawyers in supporting policy directorates to consider the Government’s policy of maintaining and advancing EU standards where appropriate. The team supports the work as part of DEXA’s on-going business of enabling policy areas to understand the international context of their work, and it also ensures that policy areas consider where alignment might be possible and how they can support ministerial decision making in considering alignment alongside the range of information and other priorities that the Government must consider in reaching policy decisions.

My view is that that has to be done across the piece with regard to proposals emanating from European Union institutions. If any particular aspects of European legislation, regulations or directives need to be considered—I think that everybody on the committee appreciates the difference between those three types of proposals—we have to ensure that we capture them across the piece.

I am very interested in Dr Whitten’s highlighting of that particular issue, and I want to make sure that we have an understanding across the full range of European Union proposals to ensure that there is no passive drift—I am not quoting exactly what Dr Whitten had to say here—or unconscious drift in alignment. Again, that would be another area in which if there was any particular thinking on the committee about the risks and how they could be ameliorated, I would be very happy to hear it.