Seòmar agus comataidhean

Apologies—I am not quite sure that I understand your question.

I think that you are right to have that concern. As I said when I appeared before the committee last December, we were puzzled as to why we were getting resistance to respecting the devolution settlements. That is very unfortunate. What is the controversy over ensuring that the list of topics excluded under the bill reflects the Scotland Act 1998? Of course, the UK Government was not willing to accept that. As I said before, we asked for two or three things. We got the key one, which is what we are talking about: the obligation on the UK Government to seek consent from the Scottish ministers on anything that affects devolution. However, the fact that we encounter resistance for what, in our view, should be automatic, is a concern.

Yes. There is a lot of engagement, particularly between Angus Robertson, the cabinet secretary with responsibility for the issues, and the UK Government. I am not directly involved in those discussions but I can assure you that there has been a lot of engagement and contact with the UK Government on all those issues.

Yes, there is a lot of work going on with the new UK Government. In particular, we were told that it has an aspiration to reset the relationship between the UK Government and devolution to the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, we do not think that that has quite been delivered, but Angus Robertson and my colleagues in the Cabinet are taking a very close interest and there is lots of engagement. You may wish to write to or contact Angus Robertson about that and get more details.

Framework bills can have their uses, and successive Scottish Parliaments, since 1999, have passed framework bills on all kinds of issues. The reason this UK framework bill is important is the potential impact on devolved matters; with a framework bill, we do not want to have to deal with lots of issues coming to us down the pipeline that might impact on devolution. That is why we are taking seriously the obligation in the primary legislation to seek consent from the Scottish ministers.

As the committee will be aware, the Scottish Government’s position is to align our regulations with those of the EU as far as possible. We have made those points to the UK Government, and there have been signs from the UK Government that it might reflect environmental law at EU level in UK domestic law. For instance, I have read that it has said that it will align with EU law on product regulation for radio equipment and related issues. Perhaps the UK Government is moving in the same direction as us, but it has retained the ability not to align, whereas our preference is that we should align with EU law.

What products might be affected is an open question. It just depends where the debate takes us in the future. However, as a principle, for all kinds of reasons, our principal position is that we should align with EU environmental law.

It is nice to be before the committee for the first time in a while. I thank you for the opportunity to outline the Scottish Government’s current position on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Because the metrology aspects of the bill are reserved and are not covered by the LCM, I will, as you would expect, focus on the product regulation element.

The UK Government has said that the creation of broad powers to regulate product characteristics, as proposed by the bill, is necessary to fill the regulatory gap that has been caused by exit from the European Union.

Unfortunately, the approach that has so far been taken in the bill does not respect the devolution settlement or the legislative competence of this Parliament. For example, exceptions to the product safety reservations that are included in the Scotland Act 1998 have not been adequately recognised, which means that some devolved product categories would fall unnecessarily within the scope of the bill.

Similarly, the bill grants regulatory powers to UK ministers in relation to the efficiency, effectiveness and environmental impacts of products, although those matters are largely devolved. The bill does not currently contain any mechanism to prevent UK ministers from using those powers in devolved areas without consent from Scottish ministers or oversight by the Scottish Parliament. That is why we have recommended that the Scottish Parliament should not grant legislative consent to the bill at this time.

The Scottish Government believes that the regulatory requirements for products in the UK should align with those in the EU. British Chambers of Commerce recently called for

“as much alignment as possible”,

which would help to facilitate trade with our most important trading partner.

The UK Government has announced plans to align with some specific EU product regulatory changes, which is to be welcomed. Although the environmental power in the bill is limited to alignment with EU law, the other powers can be used either to align or to diverge. UK ministers have stated that they want to keep both options open, although there are nods to alignment elsewhere in the bill. The impact of the bill on wider EU alignment at UK level therefore remains unclear. As a result, its impact on the UK internal market also remains uncertain.

Despite gaps in the policy background, we continue to engage positively and constructively with the UK Government. I am pleased to say to the committee that the UK Government has now agreed with our view that clause 7 covers devolved matters and requires legislative consent. We are hopeful about reaching further agreement on other issues in the bill, which might eventually allow us to change our advice to you on consent.

Thank you again for inviting me along today. I will do my best to answer your questions.

That gets to the crux of the issue. It is an enabling bill, so many such questions will be answered only once the UK Government takes a decision on how to use the enabling powers and brings forward the secondary legislation. We would then have to look at each individual case, and at that point, we would have to take a view on those questions.

In the wider sense, one of our key concerns is the mismatch between what is devolved under the Scotland Act 1998 and what would be excluded under the bill by the UK Government. There are two lists, and they do not match. Clearly, we would like to see what is devolved, according to the 1998 act, being replicated in the exclusions in the UK bill. That would result in a clear match, which is what we are pursuing.

There are a number of devolved issues involved, including food, agriculture, horticultural products, fish products, seeds, animal feedstuffs, fertilisers and pesticides. Under the 1998 act, those areas are devolved, so we would like to see them in the list of exclusions in the UK legislation.

I will bring in colleagues on your wider question about the definition of efficiency and effectiveness, which is not easy to answer because it is a technical bill. Pieter, do you want to add anything?

Your question raises a number of questions. We would have to wait and see how the secondary legislation is used under the enabling bill. We would look at each case on its merits, but the Scottish Government’s policy is to align, as far as possible, with EU legislation. We welcome the fact that the new Labour Government is not actively non-aligning, as seemed to be the position of the previous UK Government. There is a change, which we are paying close attention to. We hope to have a constructive relationship with the UK Government regarding secondary legislation, but we will have to wait and see what is proposed.

Colleagues might wish to ask about the wider issue of internal markets, which the committee might have discussed. That would take us into a slightly different, but linked, debate about what would happen if we took a different position and there was then a debate about the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Does that make sense? We know that there are examples of times when we have taken a different position and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has been used to stop that going forward. There might be implications.

We are getting some positive signals from the UK Government. Although the negotiations are on-going, we are not over the line yet, so we have to wait and see. However, I had a constructive meeting with Lord Leong, who is the minister dealing with the legislation on behalf of the UK Government in the House of Lords, through which the bill is going just now. We are waiting to see what happens next, but discussions are on-going. We feel reasonably positive that there will be some movement in Scotland’s favour that respects the devolution settlement but, of course, we just have to wait and see.