Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. We are determined to take stock of many elements of the fund this year. You have covered a few of them. Once the committee issues its inquiry report, there will be helpful information or ideas in that to assist us. You have raised issues today on, for example, communication and how we report that I want to take away and sort out this year.

I am happy to write to the committee with some of the timelines. On the broad context, we have said that, by the summer, we will publish the final document for the energy strategy and just transition plan. Also in 2024, we will begin work to put in place the framework for how we will take forward regional just transition plans for Scotland. That will obviously take some time, but we are beginning the work this year on the framework for doing that.

On the sectoral plans, the consultation has taken place for the three plans that are under way. I ask Catriona Laing to give the latest estimate of when they will be available.

That is a good point, and I recognise that issue. We will absolutely monitor that and listen to the concerns expressed by community groups or, indeed, the just transition lab. Indeed, you may reflect some of those concerns in your report, which we will respond to in due course.

Yes, it is an area in which the Scottish Government has influence and responsibility, and we recognise it as one of the challenges. If my ministerial colleague Tom Arthur were sitting here, he would explain to you how the latest national planning framework prioritises renewable energy developments, which should speed up the process for them. There is also the recently published onshore wind sector deal, which lays down what we expect to be delivered by onshore wind developers for Scotland’s benefit but, likewise, gives commitments by the Scottish Government on helping develop Scotland’s onshore wind potential. It also includes a commitment to drastically reducing the time for licensing and planning.

The provisions that we are discussing today impact on public services’ sharing of information. Eilidh McLaughlin’s role is to oversee that in her own sphere, so I will bring her in in a second or two. The wider general data protection regulation issues are reserved to the UK Government, and that is a different part of the bill. Our provisions relate not to that but to the devolved bits.

Good morning and thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss the legislative consent memorandum and subsequent supplementary LCM for the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. This is a UK bill that seeks to amend the current data protection framework and improve digital information services. There are four areas of the bill for which consent has been requested. Those areas will help us to work towards delivering a key ambition for the Scottish Government, which is to ensure that Scotland becomes an ethical digital nation where people can trust public services to respect privacy and be open and honest about the way in which data is being used. We want to maintain that commitment and to build public services in the digital domain that are inclusive and practical.

The provisions that enable digital verification will mean that people can choose to use that method to prove things about themselves in order to access a service. A trusted identification provider could, for instance, check against data that is provided by a consumer to the Department for Work and Pensions or His
Majesty’s Passport Office, such as when a customer is booking a flight or using a financial service, to help make that transaction more efficient for the customer. Customers will benefit from the smart data provisions when they are seeking lower prices or tariffs for energy bills perhaps. Smart data schemes will empower customers to make better use of their data in order to enable accurate tariff comparisons, compare deals and switch suppliers. The amendments to the Digital Economy Act 2017 mean that enterprise agencies will be able to better target businesses to help them to comply with any relevant law, grow their business and engage in trade activities, and to create green and sustainable businesses.

Police information-sharing agreements could help to mitigate the loss of law enforcement information that was caused by leaving the European Union. For example, an agreement with the EU or EU member states could include real-time alerts on wanted or missing persons, which would allow Police Scotland to know that someone whom the police are questioning at the roadside is also wanted in connection with a serious crime in the EU, or that someone who is found in a vulnerable position in Scotland was recently reported missing on the continent. Consenting to the bill will ensure that the people of Scotland do not miss out on the benefits of such measures, whether as consumers or when interacting with public services.

Finally, the sharing of law enforcement data is vital to ensuring that Scotland’s law enforcement agencies are able to cooperate with our counterparts in the UK and Europe following our exit from the European Union. Ministers and officials from the Scottish Government have engaged regularly with our UK counterparts over the past two years to ensure that our concerns about the bill have been heard. We have stressed to the UK Government our view that the bill’s benefits to organisations should not come at the expense of the rights of individuals and the continued adequacy decision from the European Commission, which is about allowing for easy flow of personal data from the UK to the EU.

Thanks for the opportunity to make some opening remarks. My officials and I—I hope that it will be mainly my officials—will be happy to answer any of your questions.

Yes, we will certainly do our best to keep Parliament up to date with anything that we become aware of. You will perhaps recall that I have come before the committee several times, with various ministerial hats on, to talk about some of these negotiations over the LCMs and about what we can and cannot support in relation to UK secretaries of state retaining power to intervene without consulting the Scottish Government.

We have to take a decision sometimes. In this case, of course, we have got a concession whereby Scottish ministers have a role and were added in to what was originally clause 93—I think that it is now clause 99. We have to weigh up the benefits and disbenefits; we took the view that, overall, in supporting this, there are more benefits than would otherwise be the case.

Not at the moment, because the thrust of the legislation is to make a sensible move from paper to electronic trading, and it has been ensured that the interests of devolution are protected in the bill should something arise in the future whereby Scottish ministers feel that they have to intervene. We are not predicting any particular scenario at the moment, but it is important to protect the principle that, because parts of the trading environment are devolved, the Scottish ministers retain the legal right to intervene.

Chris Nicholson would like to add something.

I can speak only from previous experience in ministerial roles, when I dealt with many LCMs. Generally speaking, we listen to stakeholders, consider the impact of the LCM and judge each one on its merits.

In the past, I have supported many LCMs because it has made sense to allow the UK Government to take something forward. I have done that for a range of reasons. Sometimes it has been because there is no point in duplicating effort and the LCM has enabled benefits to be delivered more quickly, and sometimes it has been because we would have done the same thing anyway. There are different reasons, but clearly there are many disputes in other areas, because the Parliament ultimately has to defend devolution. I am sure that it is the view of the committee that there will be times when compromise is appropriate and times when it is not appropriate, because devolution has been undermined. It is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

If secondary legislation were used, the process of scrutiny would involve the Parliament’s committees. There are also wider policy implications in relation to how we work with trade, moving from paper to electronic format. It is quite difficult to predict any scenarios.

The UK Government has said that it is unlikely to use the powers that it is retaining except in extreme circumstances. For instance, the amendments tabled by the UK Government are not perfect, although they move us much further forward in relation to a recognition of the role of Scottish ministers in devolved matters, but the UK Government has retained the ability to disapply certain parts of the bill in extreme circumstances. For example, if there were a cyberattack or if information technology systems were to fail and a decision was taken that we had to revert to paper for certain trade documents, the UK has said that it would use those powers—but only under those circumstances. We would have to respond to that at the time.

It is against that comforting background that we are not too concerned about there being many further interventions in terms of changes—but who knows?