Chamber and committees

That is fine.

Yes, I have concerns about that.

It has not been yet. All the different Parliaments have been undertaking their own scrutiny processes, but, once we have been through all of that and the scrutiny is complete, we will look to engage, to see what changes to the frameworks process will be needed. The evidence that the committee has taken and the scrutiny that you have provided have been important in enabling us to see areas in the frameworks that could be improved.

I know that stakeholder engagement was an issue that came out strongly in all the evidence, and I mentioned the House of Lords report in the context of how we could better engage. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about stakeholder engagement. However, we need to strike a fine balance, because the different Governments need space for free and frank discussion.

It is important to highlight that the common frameworks process does not, and is not intended to, replace the stakeholder engagement that we currently undertake as part of policy development. We will still engage with stakeholders as we normally do, whether we are bringing forward legislative proposals or developing policy. I emphasise that we are not replacing stakeholder engagement, which is still a vital part of how we develop policy. The common frameworks process is another mechanism that sits alongside that.

Common frameworks are about collaboration on the basis that we are working together as equals. They offer a positive way of working. Provided that everyone adheres to the process, they can be a positive way forward.

I do not know whether officials want to come in on that point, in particular. I suppose that that goes back to what we discussed earlier. In some ways, existing structures are being built on. I am sure that George Burgess or Euan Page will be able to say more about what that means for their own workloads. On the whole, it is positive that there are ways that we can collaborate.

On the point about the transparency of the process, I know that those who provided evidence to the committee highlighted concerns, and I understand and recognise the stakeholder concerns about transparency. We are keen to get the committee’s feedback on what the scrutiny process could be like. We have set out how the frameworks that we currently have will be monitored and reviewed. We want to hear from the committee about ways in which we could improve the relaying of information and make that process more transparent. We are happy to consider any suggestions that result from the committee’s scrutiny.

On the reporting mechanisms that we currently have, the committee will be aware that we publish the draft communiqués from our interministerial group meetings. We also provide updates after those meetings on some of the areas that we have been working on or that we have been looking to discuss. Again, I am more than happy to take away any particular comments or suggestions once the committee has finished its scrutiny.

Absolutely, because, as much as we have an exclusions process, that threat still remains. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is another example. All the concerns that we raised throughout the bill’s passage—particularly in relation to agriculture, which we felt should not have been part of that regime in the first place—have been completely ignored. That example has also been used. It is really frustrating and worrying that, as much as we commit to the process, there are pieces of legislation that are a threat not only to that process but to devolution.

It gives us serious concern. I think that we all recognise the need for common frameworks. We believe that we have put forward a really good model for how we can work together and manage policy divergence, and we have committed to the process. However, a series of acts have been introduced that seek to undermine that. That was clear in the report of the House of Lords committee and in its scrutiny of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which really undermines the work that we have tried to achieve through the common frameworks process. There is also the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which constrains the work that we have tried to take forward through common frameworks, and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is currently progressing through the UK Parliament and which is causing us serious concern.

We have been told that common frameworks will be protected, but we have not yet been told how that will happen. It is really frustrating and concerning that, as much as we have committed to the process and as much as we think that it is a positive way to collaborate and move forward, it is continually undermined by pieces of legislation that seek to hamper the choices that we can take.

Unfortunately, the backstop for all these positions is that that is where we end up. However, it is important that we have the exclusions process in place in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Earlier, I gave an example of how we have been able to use that, although the process has not been without its issues in relation to the directive. When we introduced those regulations to the Scottish Parliament, there was a gap in implementation in terms of the items that we wished to see banned. The initial exclusion that the UK Government put forward was narrower than what we sought, and the UK regulations did not come into force until August, so there was an implementation gap of a few months. The process is important and we have the mechanisms by which we can try to exclude, but it is not perfect.

We reiterated those concerns right through the passage of that legislation. It is frustrating that none of those concerns were ever addressed and that the bill was not amended in a way that would have resolved them. I know that officials are working together on the guidance and the act’s practical implications, and I understand that those conversations are on-going, but it is, as I have previously outlined to the committee, one of our biggest concerns.