Chamber and committees

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.

To be honest, that is the problem right across the piece—

Absolutely, and the framework would not change that position. You have given one example, but if the committee wants further details on that aspect, I will be happy to write to it about the decisions that we have taken. That position would not be impacted by the framework.

But again—

We made that policy decision and set out right from the start that we wanted to remain aligned with the EU. Ultimately, we want to do that for our reaccession, but we also want to maintain the standards that have been set by the EU, and to go further than that if we can and if we feel that it is appropriate. We think that that is an important starting point. Even when it comes to facilitating trade, problems have emerged where there has not been a commitment to maintaining such alignment. That is where we are coming from on that.

Yes, we still have that concern about the Subsidy Control Act 2022, because no amendments were made to resolve any of the concerns that we raised in relation to it.