Chamber and committees

We are taking evidence from you, and you said that we could feed back our thoughts. Is further stakeholder and parliamentary engagement talked about at your meetings?

In its submission, Soil Association Scotland mentions the EU civil dialogue group, which pulls together evidence from stakeholders, including producers who are involved in organic production. The association points out that such a group is missing from the common frameworks structure.

Cabinet secretary, you talked about routes of engagement. How can the Scottish Government or perhaps this committee ensure that stakeholders are engaged in the process? We touched on stakeholders earlier.

We must ensure that enough time is built into the timetable to allow scrutiny and engagement to happen.

I thank the cabinet secretary for coming along. In your introduction, you said that there should be collaboration among stakeholders. I will follow on from Beatrice Wishart’s question. Does the work between the devolved Parliaments and Westminster feel like a collaboration between equals?

Some stakeholders have expressed the view that the common frameworks should underline minimum standards and commit to non-regression. Only some of the frameworks set those baseline standards. For example, the plant varieties and seeds framework sets out an intention to maintain minimum standards across the UK but provides the opportunity for nations to flex above the standards where appropriate. Why are there different approaches to the standards? Would it not be better and an improvement to set a baseline consistently across the common frameworks?

I return to the question with which the convener started the discussion, which is the impact on the Scottish Parliament and its ability to scrutinise the legislation. Dr Garner, I hope that I am not misquoting you, but you said that the bill

“does not comply with the rules of the game”

between the UK and the EU. I am interested in your thoughts on how the bill perhaps impacts on the rules of the game between the UK Parliament and the devolved Governments across these islands.

As an aside to the comment about Henry VIII, I think that we have to make sure that we are Catherine Parr, who survived him.

I was coming to work today thinking about the whole issue of the tone and the substance, which you referenced earlier. I was interested to read a quote from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Chris Heaton-Harris, who said:

“People in Northern Ireland deserve locally-elected decision-makers and an Executive who can respond to issues facing people, families and communities across Northern Ireland at this challenging time. We are clear that people deserve an accountable devolved Government.”

I was thinking that that is a good change in tone. The Scottish Government has highlighted the breadth of powers that the bill confers on the UK Government, including devolved areas, so I am interested in delving a bit more into your comments about tone and substance, cabinet secretary.

As part of the evidence that we have just heard, there was an implication that there is perhaps a lack of understanding at Westminster of devolved powers and how our Parliaments work, which perhaps even shows a cultural and attitudinal problem at Westminster. Given that you have sat in both Parliaments, cabinet secretary, do you have any thoughts on that?

I would also like to move on to the reasons that the Scottish Government laid out for its concerns about the future impact on Scottish interests in the event of further escalation of the possible dispute between the UK Government and the EU that the bill has provoked. You have talked a bit about trade measures, but the Scottish Government has also mentioned EU withdrawal of data protection adequacy and financial services equivalence, which could have major impacts on the Scottish economy. I would like to hear your thoughts on that as well.

Sir Jonathan Jones, do you have any comments to make?

We have had long debates over the meaning of conventions in this committee.

I was also struck by Dr Fox’s comments about parliamentary scrutiny. I appreciate that you look at it from a Westminster perspective, Dr Fox, but I would be interested in any comments that you have on how members of the Scottish Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise, given the timings and the different procedures in the Parliaments. As my colleague Sarah Boyack did, I highlight the letter from our Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee that specifically questioned the UK Government about that matter.