Chamber and committees

I am reflecting on what you said, Mike Robinson, about the opportunity to take particular sectors and develop a protocol. I think that you mentioned that in relation to cement. I would be interested to hear you explore that a bit more with the committee. My sense of COP was that the process was not ideal. What happened on the Saturday, in particular, with the watering down of texts and some of the geopolitics around that, was deeply worrying. One of my children watched it and found the response from other countries, such as Switzerland, incredible. It seems that a more diplomatic effort is needed in the run-up to COPs. I am interested in whether you envisage protocols or initiatives for particular sectors in the run-up to COPs.

Aligned to that, could we have some reflections from both of you on the various high-ambition alliances that are emerging? There seemed to be more of an informal multilateralism at this COP. The Costa Ricans have been very prominent in the development of alliances around nature, and there are also the High Ambition Coalition and the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance. I am interested in the architecture of all of that, and what can happen alongside COP that can feed into much more ambition at future COPs.

My question is slightly different. In the final text of the Glasgow pact, there was, for the first time, a recognition of the need for a just transition, but I wonder what the definition of that is. At COP26, I was walking around the blue zone and looking at all the country pavilions. On the one hand, the definition of just transition from the oil and gas-producing states seemed to be about saying, “We’ll continue to extract and burn oil and gas because we need it, and we’re going to make a just transition by investing in carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen.” On the other hand, some states had formed the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, which says that we should phase out oil and gas but do so over time, rather than turning the taps off overnight.

There seem to be many different interpretations of just transition. What are your views on where the global conversation is? Do we have clarity on what a just transition for oil and gas looks like?

Do you have any thoughts on the biodiversity COP?

I want to ask you not just about alignment with regard to legislation that comes through directives, but about how those laws are interpreted once they are in domestic legislation. For example, with environmental legislation, there are often differing interpretations of the habitats regulations, which then go before the European Commission. There are often petitions and concerns expressed about licensing the killing of certain species and so on. Is that another area in which there could be divergence in interpretation of laws that originally came from Europe but that are now in domestic legislation and are open to a different interpretation?

Are there any networks that we are not plugged into, or that we are unplugging from, at the moment?

My last question is on how all this works with other countries that are not in the European Union but that might align or be part of an acquis with it. I refer to countries that are in the European Free Trade Association, such as Norway, and other countries that have a presence in Brussels and keep well informed about policy development there. How have they dealt with the question? How do they stay aware of policy changes and develop discussions with their stakeholders and public bodies?

Unless it is not in Scotland’s interests. That is what you caveated earlier.

When our predecessor committee considered the replacement for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH—regulations, one of the points that the non-governmental organisations raised at the time was that they very much valued the EU policy development forum, not just in relation to policy development, but from the point of view of on-going scrutiny of the evolution of those regulations over time in the EU. With the advent of the UK REACH regulations, there was a real sense of loss that that forum had not been replaced. As a result, although NGOs might be consulted, they are not involved in co-producing the regulations and taking part in their on-going scrutiny and evolution. The depth of EU policy making has been lost, and I think that that is worth reflecting on.

As you were speaking, I started to think about whether there is a role for wider public bodies. I will stick with the environment. I presume that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and NatureScot would be very aware of any decisions that were made on environmental regulations by the Commission or the European Court of Justice and that they would at least flag up to ministers if there were potential divergence over, say, species licensing proposals.

Do you have any thoughts on the role of Environmental Standards Scotland, now that the Commission has gone? Should it play a fuller part in the architecture of scrutiny and in understanding what alignment actually means on the ground?

My question is in a similar vein. Wider transparency is important. The report that is before us talks only about the use of the section 1 powers and not about alignment in the broadest sense, which, as Ms Boyack has just explained, is about not just legislation but the interpretation of law.

I want to move on from that conversation to think about what the different levels could be. You have described some of the challenges that parliamentary committees face with the sift process, but you have also said that consultation on those areas generally takes place with stakeholders. What kind of in-depth information can we get, particularly in areas in which, as you have said, there might be a divergence that is in Scotland’s interests? How can that be flagged up at an appropriate level for the committee and stakeholders? That is not really clear in the report that is before us, and it is clear that decisions have been made where Scotland has diverged from the European Union.