Seòmar agus comataidhean

At an early stage, we would discuss our proposals and how we would intend to bring them forward. I am sure that George Burgess can talk you through the detail of the process, but I come back to my previous concerns. Although the common frameworks process is a positive and collaborative way of working, there are, at the same time, pieces of legislation coming in at the side that seek to undermine that way of working and that could constrain our policy choices.

It is important that we work on the guidance, so that we can see the practical implications of the 2022 act, because we have been concerned throughout that it could constrain the Scottish Government’s policy choices. The direction that we might like to take could be completely hampered by the legislation and some of its principles, given the very different landscape that we have in Scotland. Some of the voluntary and coupled support schemes that we have, for example, do not exist in other parts of the UK. We have them in Scotland for the very specific reason that we want to continue to support people who are farming in the most difficult terrain and the most remote and rural parts of the country. We have been concerned that the 2022 act could hamper our ability to provide that support or that it could lead to disputes further down the line. Again, though, we will continue to work through the process. George Burgess will talk you through how that works practically.

The common frameworks process itself allows us to address or work through potential issues when they emerge. Again, common frameworks in themselves will not necessarily protect our position if another piece of legislation comes in at the side and undermines it completely.

Yes, because it is the legislation. The common frameworks are not a legislative mechanism; instead, they are a mechanism through which we have all agreed to work as a means of collaboration and on the basis that we are collaborating with each other as equals. That is where I come back to the concerns about the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Act 2022. They undermine that process. Indeed, that has been recognised through the work that the House of Lords has done on the issue, too.

That is what I have been saying. We still have that ability, and the common frameworks do not change that.

As I said, that is a point that I have taken strongly from the evidence that this committee and the House of Lords committee heard. I know that, broadly, everyone thinks there should be greater opportunity for stakeholder engagement in the frameworks, and I am more than happy to consider particular suggestions from the committee about stakeholder engagement. As I said, we still need to be able to have free and frank discussion with other Administrations in the UK.

I say again that the process is not replacing the normal stakeholder engagement that we have. Again, I will be more than happy to hear the committee’s comments.

Absolutely.

In this area, in particular, the common frameworks that we have set out essentially replicate mechanisms that were already in place. Although we are trying to work through the common frameworks on an interim basis until they have been through the scrutiny process and are agreed, they build on the existing mechanisms and our previous terms of engagement with the UK Government.

The process is not an entirely new one for us. If we look at the environment, food and rural affairs, in particular, and the way in which we have worked with the UK Government, it can be seen that we have had in place for some time the interministerial group, in which we have talked through some of the issues. In a sense, the common frameworks formalise some of the existing structures.

It is fair to say that we are probably still learning lessons and that the frameworks still need to be embedded.

There are some examples of where the common frameworks process has been used, particularly when we look at the exclusions process in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—I do not know whether we will cover that later in the evidence session. We have used the exclusions process once so far, in relation to single-use plastics.

However, we have also seen examples in which, despite all four Administrations agreeing to the process and agreeing to work in collaboration, the process has not been adhered to. An example of that relates to the UK Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill. The process should have been used for that but, instead, it started the other way round. The bill was published without discussion having taken place with the other Administrations in the UK.

With some of these areas, it is important, as we work through the process, that we learn how we should engage with one another. However, again, we are still very much working our way through that.

If it would be helpful, George Burgess can probably provide an example of how they are operating at the moment, in comparison to how things would have worked before.

We engage regularly with our stakeholders anyway where such issues can be raised. That would be the forum in which we would discuss the policies that we are seeking to develop or take forward. I do not know whether that answers your question.