Chamber and committees

Our second agenda item is evidence on the legislative consent memorandum for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. This morning we welcome to the committee Angus Robertson MSP, who is the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. He is joined by Elliot Robertson, who is head of the European Union secretariat at the Scottish Government, and Chris Nicholson, who is a solicitor and head of the constitutional reform and external affairs branch of the Scottish Government. I welcome you to the committee, cabinet secretary, and invite you to make an opening statement.

Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We had two significant round-table meetings at which we took evidence on the bill. Some witnesses—probably the majority— considered that it should be withdrawn, but witnesses were unanimous that the bill is doing things back to front. They felt that EU law should normally be retained and that—as you have suggested—dealing with areas where the UK wants to do away with or amend EU law would be proportionate. What are your thoughts on that? What discussions have you had, particularly with exporters in Scotland about their concerns?

I have a supplementary question on that. Can the cabinet secretary clarify the extent to which retaining EU law means including subsequent tertiary legislation from the EU that is relevant to Scotland? That is another area that we have had difficulty understanding in our deliberations. In a round-table discussion, some of the law representatives said that it was unclear how future tertiary EU legislation might apply to case law.

I have a final question, as the MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw more than as the convener of the committee. You talked about how, to a certain extent, the penny has not dropped for all areas in relation to what all this means. You said that only 4 per cent of businesses feel that they fully understand the impact of the bill. I am concerned about my constituents’ understanding of the situation.

Today, we have the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the Parliament building as part of its campaign in relation to puppy sales, illegal importation and animal welfare around puppy farms and so on. It would be a great disappointment to those who are still able to donate to charities such as the SSPCA and children’s safety charities to find out about the level of impact on charities and their work.

Also, we know from the evidence that we received from the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland that, post-Brexit, they no longer have an ability to identify what is a European import and what is a non-European import, which impacts their ability to target what they suspect might be dangerous products, including flammable materials—the list could go on, from nail gels with substances in them that are banned in the EU to disposable vapes with illegal batteries that explode. As someone who lost a young constituent—a toddler—last year to button battery ingestion, I know that this is a big problem and we want to keep such things off the shelves. Given the uncertainty about what this will all mean and what will happen if there are gaps, the potential impact could not be more serious for people.

Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We move to questions from members, starting with Dr Allan.

Thank you. That concludes questions from the committee this morning. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials very much for their time.

If my history is correct, I think that one of the first consumer protection laws was around the selling of alcohol and measures of the content of what was being sold. It is interesting that weights and measures—which, of course, covers the petrol in our tanks and all sorts of things—is one of the areas that was raised as a concern by trading standards officers.

Under item 2, the committee will continue to take evidence on a legislative consent memorandum for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. We are joined by: Isobel Mercer, senior policy officer at RSPB Scotland; David McKay, head of policy, Scotland, at the Soil Association; Professor Colin Reid of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association; Lloyd Austin, convener of the governance group at Scottish Environment LINK; David Bowles, chair of the Trade and Animal Welfare Coalition; and David MacKenzie, chair of the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards in Scotland. I give a warm welcome to you all—and my apologies, as I am not on the best form today because I have a cold.

We have three general themes to cover, which we hope to stick to, although round-table meetings can be a bit more free-flowing. Please indicate to me or the clerk if you want to come in on a particular question, and I hope that we will have enough time to cover everything.

I will start with a general opening question. Thank you for all your written submissions. Will you provide, without going into too much detail, an overview of your impact assessment of the bill, particularly in relation to the regulatory environment in which it operates and its potential impact on relevant standards and protections in devolved areas, and how that will affect trade and business?

I will go round the table from my left and bring in Professor Reid first.

I think that there was consensus among our witnesses last week that it would be much more sensible for the UK Government to reverse the arrangements and make keeping the laws the default position then reviewing them as required.

What are the dangers for enforcement of regulations? David MacKenzie might be looking to enforce regulations more than others around the table. Can you give us an example of a practical problem?