Seòmar agus comataidhean

Ms Minto could have added to her question the statistic that only 4 per cent of businesses believe that they have a full understanding of what the bill will mean for them, yet we are expecting businesses, environmental organisations, third sector organisations, Government departments, Parliaments and parliamentary committees—all of us—to get our heads around thousands of pieces of legislation in order to work out what we must do to avoid things falling off a cliff at the end of next year.

I have listened closely. Sarah Boyack, who is a member of the committee, asked me a good question in the chamber of the Parliament about the processes that might be involved in all this. We will all have to consider how we go through this unmatched challenge of working out how existing legislation impacts on us, understanding what needs to happen to retain it—the Government’s policy is to remain aligned, or largely aligned, with existing European legislation, and I believe that the majority of members in the Parliament want that, too—and ensuring that the Government, the Parliament and the committee have the capacity to do that. Those are all known unknowns. We have never had to do something like this before. We should not be doing it in the first place, but we will have to do it.

Is there any silver lining in the process? At least we have a very close working relationship with the Welsh Government, which faces the same challenges. I know from my conversations with Mick Antoniw that there is a huge amount of good will in trying to get through the process. If we can work with one another through the process, we will do exactly that.

Anyone who has any locus, interest or responsibility in relation to any of these matters, including third sector or representative organisations that have particular concerns about the impact that the bill might have on the environment, or colleagues who deal with rural affairs issues—it is largely thought that, in terms of legislation, the biggest number will fall into the category of rural affairs, but that takes us into food safety and related questions—will have to work very quickly to understand what needs to happen to protect our safeguards. That has been highlighted in evidence to the committee.

For the record, I am not a lawyer—as, I think, you all know—but some very eminent lawyers have given evidence to the committee. Indeed, one member of the committee is an eminent lawyer who must understand, as committee witnesses have described, the potential unintended consequences of different aspects of retained EU law, which was previously just EU law, on our domestic legal system. We need to ensure that certain things do not literally disappear from the statute book. That is an overview.

Do we know how long the process will take? No, we do not. Do we know the exact form in which we will have to do this? No, we do not. I could go on. I do not want to give the impression that we are not thinking about such things, because we are. My civil service colleagues have been updating me on the detailed work that has begun to build solid foundations for this enormous undertaking. Now that we know that the UK Government is going to press ahead and will be working to the tightest timescale—we have learned that only within the past few weeks—we will have to work very quickly.

The UK Government has a very narrow window of time in which to give any credibility to the claim that it is working with the devolved Administrations on the matter. If it is already writing to ask UK Government departments in Whitehall to provide lists and the rationale for what should and should not be retained, without the full and active involvement of devolved institutions, any claim of wanting to make devolution work in any meaningful way is for the birds.

I have not had any indication that the UK Government foresees providing any additional funding for us to manage our way through the process.

I will underline further evidence that was given by Julie Hesketh-Laird from Food Standards Scotland. She said:

“if we repeal or remove all the laws that I have just referred to, it takes us back to nothing in many cases—there is no protection pre-EU law.”

She went on to say that the bill

“removes all consumer protection ... and that in turn has a huge impact on the confidence that our trading partners would have in food that is exported from Scotland.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 24 November 2022; c 10.]

If the penny has not dropped in relation to what all this means, one needs to read and take on board the warnings that have been given to the committee in that regard.

The Scottish Government’s position is that, if the UK Government disregards the Sewel convention and railroads the bill through, with its impact on devolved areas, we will have to work extremely hard—all of us: the Government, the Parliament and the committee—to make sure that we understand the intended and, indeed, unintended consequences of retained European Union law disappearing from the statute book at the end of next year, which is what the bill provides for.

The committee knows about the scale of European Union legislation; you have heard about that from the Law Society of Scotland and others. To start with, Jacob Rees-Mogg could not tell me how many pieces of legislation are involved, but he then said that the number is between 3,000 and 4,000. We then learned from the Financial Times that it is north of 4,000 and, in its evidence to the committee, the Law Society of Scotland said that up to 5,000 pieces of legislation might be involved.

For the uninitiated who might not understand what that means, it means that Scottish Government colleagues who are responsible for our legislation and for understanding policy proposals will need to do a lot of work in going through thousands of pieces of legislation to understand what would happen if they were no longer to be on our statute book. The committee has received evidence about less well-known pieces of European legislation that are intricately part of our domestic safeguards. For example, one of the committee’s witnesses gave the example of equal pay. We need to understand the impact of such legislation in Scotland, and we then need to work out what we must do to retain all those safeguards. We need to do that between now and the end of next year.

I am incredulous that this is being foisted on the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the committee. Given that the UK Government did not simply accept an amendment in the House of Commons that would have stopped all this nonsense, we have been left looking down the barrel of next year being dominated by trying to understand what retained European Union law means in devolved areas and what safeguards we need to provide.

Let us not lose sight of the process that will be gone through. At present, UK Government departments are being asked to provide lists of legislation that, from a departmental point of view, they wish to be repealed or retained in some way. Those lists will then go to a UK Government bill minister—I understand from the timescales that that will happen in January—who will take a view on the impact of the different legislative measures. That might involve devolved areas, and I have had zero input to the UK Government about the Scottish Government’s position on different forms of legislation. The UK Government’s proposal includes mechanisms that allow it to make decisions in devolved areas. It just goes on and on.

I am incredulous that we find ourselves in this position. The bill is being foisted on us. It is the worst possible advertisement for devolution. It shows how devolution is being disregarded by the UK Government.

Indeed, but I make the point that we are talking about hard-working civil servants who have a job to do already. Those colleagues are working on the legislative programme of the Scottish Government, which was elected to legislate across the panoply of devolved areas. That is a full-time job for the civil service, and this unprecedented and entirely negative intervention by the UK Government now runs the risk of swamping the capacity of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, committees, the third sector and representative organisations.

I say again that, if the penny has not dropped yet in relation to the scale of what is going on, one really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. This is unprecedented; it has never happened in the entire history of devolution. It might, unfortunately, be unavoidable in the UK Parliament, but it is entirely avoidable for us in Scotland. Unfortunately, the UK Government is proceeding with its approach.

Sarah Boyack asked quite a number of questions there, which is right and proper. I signal to colleagues that, if they want to add anything at the end of what I say, that might be helpful in getting an insight into process points.

I do not disagree with the assessment of the head of the Northern Ireland civil service. This is massive and untenable; that is the scale of what we are dealing with. I do not want to minimise any of it. We have a difficult balance to strike, as does the committee, to ensure that we get through the process—however we get into the nuts and bolts of it—while ensuring that we maintain all the safeguards and protections across this critical range of subjects. One area of evidence that you heard about related to biosecurity, which comes in addition to all the other areas of concern that we are talking about. We will have to get to grips with understanding all these areas of regulation and safeguards. I prefer the use of the word “safeguards” because, largely, that is what they are. They safeguard us as consumers, citizens and so on. We have to do that in a way that will enable us to turn it around in less than a year.

What do we imagine the process is? We have tried to stop it and to amend it. We are trying to use the devolution settlement through the Sewel convention to protect Scotland by stopping the bill proceeding in its current form. However, if the UK Government is going to disregard the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and public opinion on this, we will have to work exceptionally hard to be involved in the process. I hear regularly from civil servants that they have good working relations with colleagues. That is not always the case, but they often have the professional relationship that you would hope that they would have with colleagues in UK Government departments.

Are there discussions across different parts of the Scottish Government with different parts or departments of the UK Government? Yes, absolutely. Do we have a full insight into where different UK Government departments are in their assessment of retained EU law as that pertains to different departmental areas of responsibility? We definitely do not have full insight of that. We have asked, but it has not been provided. There are examples of legislation that has been shared when there has been a thought that it is of import, but the situation is not where we need to be across the piece. The heavy lifting in this early phase will be civil service to civil service.

Do we talk about this politician to politician when we have bilateral meetings? Well, the point there is whether—not when—we have bilateral meetings. From evidence to a UK Parliament committee this week, I was reminded that a senior UK Government minister had not yet met her Scottish Government opposite number—nor had her predecessor ever done so—and she could not even name who her opposite number is. That is how bad relations are with the UK Government. Will I use every and any opportunity that I can to make all these points? Yes, absolutely, but there is a tin ear and an unwillingness to deal with things, despite their importance. Given where we are, will we seek to have more interaction on things? Yes, we will, with both the UK Government and other devolved Administrations, so that we can share the burden of all this.

On the specifics of where we are with departmental appeals for lists and how that will be taken forward, I will ask colleagues—perhaps Elliot Robertson—to pitch in.

I have said a number of times in evidence to the committee that I have a long experience as a parliamentarian in having responsibility for scrutinising European legislation, having served on the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee for 10 years. I understand how important it is that parliamentarians are able to do their job and ensure that they understand proposals and what their impact will be, and how important it is to ensure that Parliament, whether in committee or as a whole in the chamber, is appropriately involved in the process. That is my default position.

We will have to consider how the process for the bill is managed, on the basis of an understanding of the legislation that is involved and the form in which that will be protected in law in Scotland, which no doubt will be through the usual channels for legislation going through the Scottish Parliament. I give Sarah Boyack and committee members the assurance that I am extremely committed to ensuring that the committee is able to do its job, even if just—it should not just be this—from this particular point of view, given everything that I have said about capacity. The more people who have an interest in and understanding of how big a challenge this is and who take evidence that is able to shine light into different policy areas, the better. We are literally in this together. That is how the Parliament was conceived as working: parliamentary committees working with Government on things such as this. That is another reason, in addition to many others, for you having the best understanding of what needs to be done and the stage at which that will happen and being able to play your part in that.

As soon as there is anything concrete with which I can come back to you, convener, I will do so, and I know that there are on-going discussions between my officials and your clerks. I have been very clear with my colleagues that that is the approach that I want to be taken. I know that there have been views from the committee about how, before the REUL bill approach, we would have managed maintaining alignment with European Union legislation in a post-Brexit world. I have paid close attention to the concerns of committee members to ensure that we have the best possible system in place. That is and has been an iterative process.

I had signalled that I was prepared for improvements to be made to that process, but we are in a totally different situation now. We can, of course, learn from how things were working prior to the proposals for the REUL bill, but we will now have to think anew about how we do all that as a Government and, no doubt, you will be thinking about how you wish to do that as a committee. However, I say to you very clearly that I want us to work together so that you can do your job and we can do our job. I hope that, between us, we can minimise the damage and the unnecessary and avoidable impact that that has on our parliamentary process and the Government’s legislative programme.

That is why this is an issue right across Government. As you might imagine with such a process, when an idea is mooted or there is proposed legislation, that usually starts off in the relevant Government department. In this case, I have responsibility in relation to European Union matters, so the matter falls within my orbit. However, as it has become clear that the bill is happening and we fear that the UK Government will disregard the Sewel convention, the issue is now being considered right across Government, because European Union retained legislation impacts in policy areas such as those that Sarah Boyack has mentioned.

On the hierarchy of priorities, safety is a really important consideration, but there are others, too, and those have been highlighted to the committee in evidence. As soon as I understand where there are particular risk factors, I am happy to share that with the committee so that you can satisfy yourselves that those are indeed the areas with highest risk. You may want to add to that. That is part of the process that I have signalled that I want to have so that we have a collegial relationship in this place, if not with another place.

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?

Welcome to the brave new world—