Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate those comments, given that the issue of tracking the Government’s considerations has been raised by quite a few witnesses both orally and in written evidence. The proposed approach would very much help with transparency. After all, the annual report is welcome, but what about the rest of the year? What about the Government’s forward planning? There is also the issue of not just being able to deal with what has already been decided at the EU level but having the capacity to anticipate what is coming next. Many witnesses from whom we have heard would very much welcome a commitment in that respect.

It has been good to get so much evidence from a range of stakeholders. A key issue that all of them have raised is transparency. Indeed, you have talked about sifting what is coming and the major effort that will be required in that respect not just by Government but by civic society, businesses and the Parliament.

On the question of how the Scottish Government can assist the process, it was suggested earlier that there could be a website on which people could see, through, say, the use of a green, orange and red flag system, where the Scottish Government intended to align with the EU, where it did not and where it was thinking about it. Have you or your officials thought about such a move, and have you had any joint ministerial discussions within the Scottish Government on how you might manage and monitor that process and how you might communicate that not just to the Parliament but more widely to businesses, civic society, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and so on?

I want to follow up on that issue, as that is a valuable area of questioning. Some witnesses have suggested the concept of having different forums in which people could exchange best practice and be helped to keep up with what is happening in Europe through briefings. That links with the point that COSLA made about its joint links with local government across the EU. Bringing those together would help the third sector, raise civic society connections and be good for transparency for businesses and our parliamentary scrutiny.

What would work for you in terms of transparency? Would it be a website that set out the issues that were being looked at? Could there be a traffic light system, so that people could see where there would not be change, where change was being considered and where change was likely to be implemented, and so that your members and wider civic society could be consulted about change? What would work for the vast range of organisations, such as your organisation’s different members, given their resources, whether they have an environmental or a human rights angle?

It was useful to read your written evidence. Thinking about the transparency issue, both of you have mentioned how it can be tracked and the extent to which the Scottish Government makes public its different calculations in relation to new EU legislation. Professor Armstrong, your briefing paper mentions several issues, such as the deposit return scheme, minimum unit pricing and water services. Will you say a little more about the water services issue and how we could track that, given the range of key players across Scotland who would have a strong interest, such as businesses, local authorities, Scottish Water and environmental campaigners?

I am talking not just about issues on which you have decided to use legislation but issues on which you have decided to use other methods or have decided explicitly not to use legislation or to act in that way.

—because, as well as enabling you to draw on that expertise, that would address the issue of transparency, the importance of which came across strongly in the evidence to us.

I apologise for that; I misread the evidence.

I welcome the witnesses to the meeting and thank them for their submissions. It has been really interesting to work through them.

I want to follow up Donald Cameron’s questions about different impacts across the UK, and to come back to the peat issue that Vhairi Tollan raised. Such matters are certainly at the forefront of our minds, given that we are in coming to the end of the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties, or COP26. In your submission, you say that

“The UKIM Act could pose challenges for Scotland’s ambition to implement a ban on the sale of peat for horticulture in this parliamentary session”,

although you have just said that that might or might not be the case. What interaction have you had on that policy issue with the Scottish and UK Governments, and to what extent have you been able to talk to parliamentarians in both Parliaments in order to start that conversation?

To pick that up, but also to move sideways, I will ask Alison Douglas and David Thomson about the challenge that you both highlighted with regard to sale of alcohol products. There is a very striking statistic in the evidence about alcohol-specific death rates, which are 68 per cent higher for men and 78 per cent higher for women in Scotland that they are in England and Wales. There is obviously a big issue about responsible alcohol drinking. What discussions have you had with both Governments? Certain products that are made in Scotland are part of our core economy, but there is also a discussion to be had about responsible drinking and getting the balance right. On the basis that public health is a devolved issue, I am interested in hearing, first from David Thomson, about discussions and engagement that you have had with both Governments. There is a debate in Scotland and a strong ambition to address that issue.