Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is always a concern. The bill is an enabling bill, so should the delegated powers be used, there could be instances in which, as you have said, no matter what action the Parliament takes under devolved powers, it could be overridden by the 2020 internal market act. Again, that is two steps away from where we are just now; we are just trying to focus on fixing the situation.

First, I previously alluded to the fact that there should be a match between the list of what is devolved in the area under the Scotland Act 1998 and the list of what is excluded under the UK bill. In our view, the lists should match, which would respect the devolution settlement and the Scottish Parliament.

Secondly, there is an issue around the extent to which the Secretary of State in the UK Government would use the bill to introduce secondary legislation. Where that would impinge on devolved powers, legislative consent clearly must be sought from the Scottish Parliament.

Thirdly, there is the wider issue of the environmental impact of products, which we will pay attention to as well, because we want consent to be sought where there is an impact on Scotland.

Well, we have a new UK Government, with which the First Minister and colleagues are raising issues in relation to the internal market act. We would like to see it being removed from the statute book, and we await the response of the UK Government. We have a new Government and a more constructive relationship exists with it, so far. We want results from that new constructive relationship, so whether the UK Government addresses Scotland’s concerns about the IMA will be a good test of that new UK Government. Time will tell: I cannot answer that question just now.

Again, although this is a backdrop issue, it is a very serious one. We must ensure that the devolution settlements are respected in the day-to-day legislation that goes through the UK Parliament. That is what this is about. We cannot predict how the delegated powers will be used. As I said earlier, it is an enabling bill, so should the UK Government introduce legislation, we want to ensure that devolution is protected—otherwise, what will happen will be against Scotland’s wishes.

The issues are very important, which is why I want those assurances to be put in the bill at this time, as we want with all legislation. Although it is obviously disappointing that those assurances were not, from the word go, contained in the bill, we are having constructive discussion with the UK Government to ensure that the bill is amended.

On your point about the lists, one of our objectives, as I said previously, is to get a match between the two.

I will give a quick response, then Euan Page, who is our resident expert on those issues, might want to come in.

In my response to Murdo Fraser, I began alluding to the big picture of whether Scotland should take a different view—in line with what we hope will be confirmed as the devolved aspects of the bill—if that could then be overridden by the 2020 internal market act. For example, if we took a different view on product legislation, and even if Scotland adopted different regulations that were passed by this Parliament and put in place, businesses or manufacturers might be able to align with English regulations and be protected by the 2020 act. That is directly relevant.

Euan might be able to add more.

We would ensure that scrutiny took place at the point when secondary legislation or delegated powers were used under the enabling power, because if that were to impinge on devolved issues, we have a process in the Scottish Parliament to allow it to be scrutinised by committees and others. Stakeholders would be able to have their views heard as well, because the Scottish Government would have to make a decision as to whether to recommend consent on each issue. That is probably the point at which scrutiny and involving stakeholders would happen.

At the moment, the bill is vague—it is a very high-level enabling bill—so it is difficult for any of us, including stakeholders, to give a view. Members can see that the definition of what is covered by the bill is high level and quite broad. We are therefore not yet in a position give clarity on that.

All that I can say at the moment is that the reason why we are determined to try to secure assurances for the Scottish Parliament and respect for devolution, under the bill, is to ensure that we avoid such scenarios. I cannot foresee how the UK Government will use the bill or enabling powers on pesticides or anything else, but we want to safeguard against such scenarios by ensuring that in relation to pesticides, which is one area that is devolved, devolution is respected under the UK bill, so that decisions are for Scottish ministers and not for UK ministers. That is all that I can say about it, at the moment.

On Northern Ireland’s relationship with the EU, members will be aware, as it has been repeated many times, that the Scottish Government—given the irony that Scotland voted against Brexit—did not get the same helpful access to the EU market as Northern Ireland has, and there is obviously a separate debate about that.

We take that into account, and we very much recognise that concern. In other parts of Government, changes have been made to give more assurance to certain sectors—for instance, the third sector—in various funds. Because the just transition fund is capital-intensive, we are very much at the behest of Jeremy Hunt, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, standing up and announcing the UK Government budget. We are not in the same position as the UK Government in being able to give those multiyear guarantees, but we have funded multiyear projects. In many cases, the funding in the draft budget, as well as previous funding, is going towards multiyear projects.

I take the point about looking several years ahead and the fact that there may be projects that require several years of commitment. Clearly, we are not in a position to give that just now, because of the financial constraints.

I will certainly take that point away and reflect on it. I am sure that the committee will, no doubt, raise it in its report as well. There are not necessarily any easy answers to those questions, but I assure you that we are conscious of the issue, as we have had similar feedback from groups.

If anyone has the answer on how to avoid trade-offs, I am all ears. That is something that we all struggle with and always have. Clearly, you have to take a decision at some point to open funds and work with people to make the best of what is available. There is no way of avoiding trade-offs. You mentioned that Forres, which is the most affluent ward, receives funds. The projects will benefit the whole community. Looking at it through just one lens is not always helpful. Obviously, I would have to check exactly what Moray TUC said, but you get my gist.

A lot of the projects are about tackling some of the inequalities that I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. The just transition is about creating good green jobs and tackling some of the social ills and inequalities in society. Some people who live in energy-rich Moray cannot afford to pay their fuel bills, and we have to address such issues as part of the just transition. If some of the small local projects can help to make a difference to some local people, they are important. We have to spread that ethos throughout the country for the national transition across Scotland.

That is a good question, and it is, of course, a question that I hear often. The just transition principles are, of course, reflected in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. When I meet people, I define the just transition in as straightforward a way as I can, as a way of ensuring that the transition to net zero is managed and planned, and I explain that the measures that we take and the policies that we implement to go towards net zero are carried out in a fair way, do not leave people behind, and are co-designed with the people most affected. Clearly, creating good green jobs for people in Scotland, particularly those in the sectors that are most impacted by the transition away from fossil fuels to low-carbon technologies, is at the heart of that. Most people I have spoken to in organisations, including Aberdeen City Council, have accepted that when I have met them, and I think that there is broad agreement about the aims and general principles of the just transition.

There is always a debate, because a just transition can mean all things to all people. It is not just about jobs. Jobs are at the heart of it, but it is also about using the economic transformation that we will be going through in the coming decades between now and 2045. There is a massive window of opportunity to fix things that we do not think are right and we think are unfair in our society and economy, including fuel poverty and many other economic issues. As we go through that economic transformation, we have an opportunity to fix some of those things in our society.