Chamber and committees

Absolutely. Obviously, the regulations will be in place for only a short period of time. Ultimately, we have to make decisions that are in the best interests of the industry and producers in Scotland. That is why we have introduced the regulations. The approach is in line with what is happening across Great Britain at the moment.

As far as I am aware, you are right: the EU is not introducing similar regulations. However, we know that AI impacts not only Scotland and the United Kingdom; it impacts other countries, too. I believe that there were trade reasons why defrosted meat was not permitted to be sold in that way. I do not know whether the officials have any other information on why we have set that out in regulations.

What do you mean? Do you mean potentially extending that or bringing it forward? Obviously, we would want to see what impact there has been. We will monitor that after 31 December to see how the approach has worked and whether it has had that impact.

As far as I am aware, this is the first time that we have introduced the regulations. My officials are nodding. I believe that this is the first time that we have done that. Given the nature of AI and what we have seen this year, the situation is unprecedented; we have never seen an outbreak like it. That is why we have had to introduce the regulations. There are unique circumstances.

They would not be able to be sold past that point. That is what we set out in the regulations. They can be sold only until 31 December.

That is why we have the common frameworks processes—they allow us to discuss matters at an early stage. As part of the common frameworks, we share information early and try to resolve any potential issues as early as possible, so that they do not need to be escalated. If it looks as though there might be policy divergence, the common frameworks ensure that we discuss at an early stage what the impact might be and how it might be managed.

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.