Seòmar agus comataidhean

I could not agree more. Indeed, I made that point prior to Mr Brown’s membership of the committee. There is a danger in saying, “We require everything in its raw format”—that is, unprocessed, unassessed and without prioritisation or the help of expert advisers, clerks or academics in assessing the importance of a regulation, a directive and so on. Having a sift process is a good thing, but it must operate in a way that can give individual committee members or different subject committees of the Parliament the opportunity in good time—I stress that phrase “in good time”, because it is the key factor—to influence the Government’s thinking and, indeed, the legislative programme, given that legislative instruments might well be at play, and to allow you as parliamentarians and collectively as a committee to discharge your responsibilities.

The injunction with regard to proportionality is key. Will we get that right all the time? Probably not, because of the volume of material. However, because we are looking back, looking at what is happening presently and looking at what is happening in the future, you can—to go back to Mr Ruskell’s specific example on legislation—allow evidence to be taken in good time, allow more information to be drawn down and satisfy yourselves that you have done everything that you think is necessary and proportionate.

We are trying to do exactly the same, and the fact that there is an open channel between officials and committee clerks is also very helpful. We should not be satisfying your demands as a committee just from evidence session to evidence session—it should be an on-going process. You should be aware of things that are happening in the meantime, and we should be aware of any specific issues that you might have.

Indeed, Mr Cameron’s question was a good example of that; he wanted to know something technical, but although I have a very big folder, I did not have that information, and I would have liked to have been able to furnish him with it. If we can get that process working well, questions will, I hope, be answered, but if more information is required, it can be given in good time, as part of the committee’s on-going investigations and inquiries.

We all understand that this is quite a technical area, so we are all very grateful to have the support of committee clerks and advisers and, in my case, my civil service colleagues here and a wider team. If any of them want to illustrate with specifics the points that I am making in generality, I would be grateful for additional comments.

The first thing that I would say is that we are seeking to remain aligned with the EU where it is appropriate to do so. Using phrases such as “where it is appropriate”, “where it is possible” and “where it is meaningful” matters. We are not in the European Union, so we are trying to find our best way, using a variety of different approaches, to make sure that we can remain aligned and working in parallel with the EU. We will do that within devolved competence, and we will do that to implement measures that have demonstrable effect.

There are areas in which it is unlikely that there would be demonstrable effect, and there are areas in which measures relate to EU organisations that we are not a part of, or they might be involved in particular areas in which there is no legal locus here. It is literally impossible to do 100 per cent of what the EU is doing in terms of its policy, because we are not in the EU now.

That said, we are going to do everything that we can to maintain the standards and values of the European Union and its strategic approach to things. We have a resource in the Scottish Government here and, indeed, in Scotland House in Brussels—I think that a good number of committee members have already been there, so you will know how competent the team is. Those resources will, in co-ordination, ensure the best way of providing you—and through you, to business and such like—with an understanding of which legislation will have an impact on what we are going to be doing. Everyone on the committee will understand the reporting mechanisms that have been brought in train and will, as a result, be aware of how, when measures are introduced, alignment will be achieved.

I think that we are in a much better place now. As there have been quite a few changes on the committee, some colleagues might not have heard this, but I have already given the committee a commitment in this respect and have made it clear that, having spent 10 years on the European Scrutiny Committee at Westminster, where every week we had to go through European Union proposals, and having quite literally sat where you are sitting, I do understand what you require to be satisfied that you can scrutinise what the Scottish Government is doing on alignment. However, it is appreciated that this has the potential to be a massive undertaking, so we are trying to find a balance between reporting the legislation, the policies and the strategies of the European Union and how we are seeking to remain aligned with them, in order that you can scrutinise what we are doing. It is about striking a balance between giving you something unwieldy and too technical, with perhaps too much being lost in the detail, and giving you everything that you require.

As I have said, this is the first published iteration of this approach. If there is something that you feel that you require more of or less of, or if you feel that you require something different, we are very open to hearing those comments. I know that my colleagues and the committee clerks have been working closely to ensure that our reporting method is of a standard that is appropriate to you.

My default position is that we should before we should not—if that makes sense. The policy of the Government is that we wish to see Scotland rejoin the European Union as quickly as possible. I look forward to publishing the Scottish Government’s paper on this very subject tomorrow. Anybody who understands how European Union accession works knows that there is a requirement for candidate countries to show that they are ready to join, which, in significant part, is because there is an alignment between candidate countries and the standards of the European Union. Our remaining aligned with the European Union is key to the speediest rejoining of the European Union, which is our stated aim.

My position is that, wherever we can, we should be seeking to align, and there needs to be a very good reason why not. Ms Forbes makes the point: in significant part, it is very much a matter of common sense.

I will refer to colleagues about this later, but I am not aware where there are issues that may have been on the cusp, but there is nothing at the forefront of my mind that falls into that category. Will there be such issues? No doubt. I am not aware of any that are of particular import at the present time, however.

That is a good question. There are quite a number of different sources that can be used as part of EU tracking mechanisms, which are very common in Brussels. I think that everybody knows about the scale of representative organisations, embassies and offices there. Scotland has its own capacity and representation. I would hope that our process is as informed as possible by those tracking providers that provide that service in the best, most useful way. The work that is conducted in the Scottish Parliament is an important part of that.

We will only know if we are missing anything as we go through a number of rounds of the reporting mechanism. Colleagues, clerks or academics can then point to ways in which other tracking mechanisms have caught something—or not—and then work out whether we have done as well as we can.

It is a major industry in Brussels to make sure that everybody is aware of what is happening, and we will avail ourselves of the best information both there and here. As you will know from your own deliberations, extremely talented academics and specialists in the field work daily on that and form part of a wider ecosystem of flagging up what is happening and the import of that. We just have to make sure that we capture it all.

That is a very complex area, and Alexander Stewart is absolutely right to highlight it. The European Union is one of the only bodies in the world with the scale and the heft to be able to come up with frameworks for some of those really big challenges, because it is a match for other trading blocs or for particular economic interests. We therefore have to watch very closely what European colleagues are doing in that area. Those of us who want the highest standards in those areas and others can invest some confidence in the fact that the EU will do a lot of the heavy lifting for us. That makes the case for why alignment is of import, quite apart from the sense of remaining aligned so that our return to the European Union is as seamless as possible.

The digital area is exceptionally complex. I am sure that Mr Stewart saw the coverage of the recent conference on artificial intelligence that was hosted by the UK Government—at which, unfortunately, Scotland was not present. Everybody has to think about how we approach all of that, in order to have the appropriate legal and other safeguards. We will work closely with European colleagues to make sure that it is fit for purpose here as well.

It is good to be back. The instrument before the committee is a technical one to update the devolved statute book for the new legal concept of assimilated law, which will become the new name for retained EU law under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The change takes effect at the end of the year and cannot be prevented; therefore, as a responsible Government, we want to ensure there is maximal clarity in devolved primary and secondary legislation.

This is the only Scottish statutory instrument laid by the Government under the REUL act to date and the Government has no plans to use REUL act powers to alter policy. The range of policy areas that the SSI touches on—from aquaculture and fisheries to waste management—shows the potential of the REUL act to affect the full panoply of devolved competences.

The committee’s recent report “How Devolution is Changing Post-EU” found that the REUL act, like the UK Internal Market Act 2020, represents

“a significant shift in the constitutional landscape”.

I assure members that the Government is treating the REUL act as such. We are committed to protecting devolved interests in the management of UK statutory instrument proposals, and where powers allow, and it is appropriate to do so, we will seek to legislate in this Parliament. That is why we have brought forward the SSI.

I wish to touch on the report that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee issued last week, which

“draws the instrument to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground (e), in that there appears to be a doubt whether paragraph 3 of schedule 1 is intra vires.”

That paragraph amends the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 so that the phrase “EU obligation” becomes “assimilated obligation”. I note the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s position, but I remain of the view that all aspects of the SSI are within the enabling powers, and are good law, so I do not propose to withdraw and relay the instrument to exclude the necessary freedom of information amendments. Where out-of-date EU terminology stands on the statute book, it is appropriate that such cases are remedied and, here, an appropriate legislative vehicle was to hand.

I look forward to the committee’s questions on this technical subject. I am delighted to be joined by the two leading experts in the field, who will be able to answer any technical questions that you may have.

I will answer the first part of Donald Cameron’s question, and there will be some updating on the second part. On the first point, I absolutely acknowledge that, in the absence of a reporting mechanism, the committee found itself in an imbalance of understanding, knowledge and information. From the first instance of that being the subject of discussion with me before the committee, I have always acknowledged it. I want to be as helpful as possible and have always explained my own personal experience from having had to do this at the other end of the spectrum—every week, the European Scrutiny Committee in the UK Parliament had a very thick sheaf of papers even after a sift by four legal advisers, all of whom were former UK ambassadors. The volume of material that can be scrutinised is enormous.

This is the first attempt at providing a mechanism that should point you towards what we have done, what we are considering and what we expect to be coming down the line, and it is a really good start. There will be areas for which one wants more information. One will be aware of the ground, which was perhaps not previously the case. I therefore totally agree, and I hope that we get the balance right. That is why I say again, if more is required, or less, or if things are needed in a slightly different format, let us try to make that work.

However, I hope that there is an appreciation that this is a very genuine attempt by the Government to work with the committee for the benefit of better lawmaking and scrutiny. We are open to any feedback about what needs to change in relation to that mechanism, but the work is just starting, so we can give it a chance to bed in and then take an iterative approach as we go forward.

George Macpherson, do you want to add anything on the tertiary law points?

I will have to furnish Mr Cameron with some advice from Cabinet colleagues who have primary responsibility for that. That is where one of the dangers lies in having a report that includes a myriad of listings of different legislative proposals, because one can pick one out of the hat, draw attention to it and ask questions about it. I want to be able to provide Mr Cameron with the answer to his question, but I am not in a position to do that.

Thank you very much. On Europe day on 9 May, I reiterated the Scottish Government’s commitment to its EU alignment policy and to providing further information to support the Parliament’s scrutiny role on the subject.

Government policy has not changed. Even in the face of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, with its divergent and deregulatory intent, we will continue to seek to align with the EU where appropriate. That means where it is possible and where it is meaningful for us to do so. The standards that are set by the EU will continue to influence many of the policy frameworks and initiatives that we develop domestically. I am pleased to provide evidence to the committee.

The new annual report improves the transparency of ministerial decision making and increases the amount of information that is provided. The reporting includes our draft annual report on use of the power to align, as required by the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. The report was laid in the Parliament on 31 October.

As the committee knows, since your response to last year’s draft report on the continuity act, officials have been working to expand and centralise the process of managing and sharing information regarding alignment decisions. I thank parliamentary clerks for working jointly with my officials so that we can provide the information that is needed by the Parliament to carry out its scrutiny function.

My letter of 31 October to the committee confirms the details of the extended approach that has been implemented starting in July. Our expanded reporting demonstrates the complexity of taking alignment decisions, and the need for a proportionate approach in that alignment is not always possible as Scotland is no longer part of the structures to which much of EU law relates. We are also constrained by the limitations of the devolution settlement and, of course, the willingness of the United Kingdom Government to respect it.

I would like to mention the independent research that was commissioned by the committee and carried out by Queen’s University Belfast. I agree with its core findings that

“the Scottish Government commitment to align with developments in EU law has largely been upheld”,

and that there has been no

“significant divergence between Scots Law and EU Law”.

I also agree with the report’s conclusion that minor technical divergence will accumulate over time.

Mindful of that, the Scottish Government’s approach includes careful consideration of on-going technical developments in the EU, including via tertiary legislation as well as other instruments. That is illustrated in our expanded annual reporting, although this year’s report only reflects the part of the year during which our updated processes have been in operation.

As outlined in my letter from 3 September, when Scottish Government legislation is laid in the Scottish Parliament, information will now be included in policy notes and relevant memoranda for bills to assist with scrutiny. In the future, our reports will cover a full year and will be based on the same reporting period as that of the continuity act; namely, from 1 September to 31 August.

I would welcome discussion between officials regarding the feasibility of sharing the tracker material that is produced by Dr Lisa Whitten in a timeframe that would allow us to co-ordinate the consideration of its conclusions in our analysis of current EU proposals.

I hope that our revised reporting and these comments are helpful in considering how the Scottish Government is implementing its alignment policy, and I look forward to your questions.

Yes.