Annbal remind everyone and welcome to the 28th meeting of the rural affairs, islands and natural environment committee in 2022 before we begin. Can remind all those members using electronic devices to switch them to silent. Our first item of business today is a decision on taking item 4 in private are we agreed? Thank you! Our second item of business this morning is an evidence session with the cabinet secretary for rural affairs and islands on common frameworks and I welcome i'r fathlwni Mhagwch, Mary Gujeon, lwrd Llywodraeth, Ffairon Islands, George Burgess, y director of agriculture and rural economy, a New and Page Head of UK frameworks in the Scottish Government. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. I invite Mary Gujeon to come and give evidence on common frameworks. We are coming to the culmination of a process, which started all the way back in October 2017, with agreement of the framework principles by the joint ministerial committed and European negotiations. I know that there have been concerns about the delays during the development of these frameworks and I share the frustration of the Parliament and indeed of stakeholders at the time that it is taking to finalise and deliver them. The most significant factors in causing the delays lie outside the Scottish Government's control. I am of course grateful for the committee's patience on that. Despite those frustrations, we remain committed to working collaboratively with the UK Government on common frameworks on the basis of consensus and in line with the framework principles. Those frameworks, including the ones that are being scrutinised by the committee, are being established to manage policy divergence on the basis of agreement and in a way that respects devolution. They have been operational on an interim basis since the end of the transition period, and they will of course remain provisional until all four UK legislators have completed their parliamentary scrutiny. It is important to note at this point that those frameworks are policy neutral. They are intergovernmental arrangements for managing policy divergence and are not in themselves policy innovations. The fundamental reason for putting those frameworks in place has not changed. When we were taken out of the EU after the 2016 referendum, we accepted that there would be some areas where the practical regulatory and market implications of that decision would need to be managed. The frameworks offer a model by which to manage such implications by agreement and collaboration between equals rather than by imposition, and that could be usedfully applied to intergovernmental relations in the UK more widely. Sadly, that is not something that is much in evidence in other UK Government efforts. The UK Government Internal Market Act is a glaring example of the UK's Government's willingness to drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement when it suits them and its legislation that we remain fundamentally opposed to. It continues to pose a significant threat to the implementation of the common frameworks, and I am sure that that is something that we will pick up later on in this session. Several of the frameworks that were published this year fall under the committee's remit. As I have said in previous sessions with the committee, I am committed to being open and transparent in relation to this and to working with you as much as possible during the scrutiny process for those frameworks. Thank you, cabinet secretary. As you said, those are provisionally in operation, but in practice they are probably going to be a moving feast. They are never going to come to an end when we have a final piece of legislation. However, since January 2021, they have been in operation to some extent. Can you give us some examples of how they work in operation and what have been the successes and challenges since they came into operation? Certainly in this area, in particular, the common frameworks that we have set out essentially replicate mechanisms that have been in place already. While we are working through those and trying to work through the common frameworks on an interim basis until they are agreed and they have been through that scrutiny process, they build on those existing mechanisms and the terms of engagement in ways that we have engaged with the UK Government previously. I do not think that it is an entirely new process for us. When you look to the Efra area in particular and the way that we have worked with the UK Government, we have had the interministerial group in place for some time. We have talked through some of those issues. I think that, in a sense, what the common frameworks do is to formalise some of those existing structures that have already been in place. What lessons have you learnt? Can you give us some examples within your remit of how they have changed and what lessons have you learnt as you have gone through this process? It is fair to say that we are probably still learning the lessons and the frameworks would still need to be embedded. I think that there have been some examples, particularly when you look at the exclusions process that we have in the UK Internal Market Act. I do not know if that is something that we will be covering later on in the session, but we have used that once so far. We have one example of that in relation to single-use plastics, where that process has been used through the common frameworks. We have also seen examples where, despite all four administrations agreeing to this process and agreeing to work in collaboration where they have not been adhered to, an example of that would be the precision breathing bill that the UK Government has introduced, which should have used that process but instead started the other way around so the bill was published without having had that discussion with the other administrations within the UK. I think that with some of those areas that we learn the lessons as we work through this process as to how we should be engaging with each other. We are very much still working our way through that. Obviously, the whole category of government activity around those frameworks is forced upon us all by the existence of Brexit, which is another story. Are there elements of the frameworks, the working groups and so on? Are all those elements operational now or are there still bits of it that have still to be created? I will probably ask George to come in more detail as I can provide a further example as to how that is operating at the moment in comparison to how things would have worked before if that would be helpful. Essentially, the frameworks are operational, so all the groups that are described in them are up and running. For example, as the cabinet secretary said, we have, in the deaf or space, the inter-ministerial group. Below that, we have a number of structures as senior officials, programme board, policy collaboration groups. One of the things that, as the cabinet secretary said, most of that was already in place for some time. One of the bits that actually had to be created specifically because of Brexit was the market monitoring group. A function previously carried out by the European Commission, we had to create a domestic version of that. That work is up and running. That group is meeting and its material is being published on the UK Government website for all to see. Can you explain a bit more about what the market monitoring group does and how it is coming to be? That is essentially looking at the principal agricultural commodities—beef, sheep, grain, pig meat, dairy—looking at prices on the market, looking at trends. As I say, that was a function previously carried out by the European Commission to guide whether they needed to intervene in the markets in any way through private storage aid or the like. We no longer have access to that European consideration, so this group provides that function on a UK-wide basis so that, if they identify problems in the market—obviously, in the last 18 months or two years, we have had a number of examples of that—they can then provide that analytical advice to the other groups in the structure, ultimately, to ministers so that ministers in the various administrations can decide whether they need to take action to intervene. I will refer back to the question that the convener asked and the challenges and the frameworks, given that they appear to be agreed between Governments, but stakeholder evidence gives the view that provisions of the UK Internal Market Act render them useless. I will note the Law Society of Scotland saying that we note that there are no domestic legal constraints on the powers of the UK Parliament or the UK Government concerning common frameworks. Conversely, we note that devolved Governments will be bound by such common frameworks, either because they have agreed them or because they are bound by law. Does that give you concern about how the common frameworks will work for the Scottish Government? It gives a serious concern, because as much as we have committed to this process, and we believe that this is a really good model that we have put forward in terms of how we can work together and how we can manage policy divergence, I think that we all recognise the need for common frameworks, we have committed to that process, but then we have seen a series of acts come forward that have sought to undermine that. I think that that was also cleared in the evidence and the report from the House of Lords Committee and its scrutiny of that as well in relation to the UK Internal Market Act, which undermines the work that we have tried to achieve through the common frameworks process. We also have the subsidy control act, which, again, constrains the work that we have committed to taking forward through the common frameworks. We also have the retained EU law bill, which is currently progressing through the UK Parliament too, which causes a serious concern. As much as we have been told that the common frameworks will be protected in that as yet, we have not been told how that is going to happen. It is really frustrating and really concerning that, as much as we have committed to this process and we think that it is a positive way to collaborate and move forward, it is continually undermined by the other pieces of legislation that seek to hamper the choices that we can take. My understanding is that, despite all of the rhetoric around how that will be a common framework will work together, ultimately it is the UK minister who will have the overruling decision on whether or not a common framework is within exceptions, exemptions that the Scottish Government may wish to apply. Is that correct? Is that your understanding? Ultimately, I think that the backstop of all these positions is where we end up, unfortunately. However, I think that it is important that we have that exclusions process in place in relation to the UK internal market act. I had given a bit of an example earlier as to how we have been able to use that. Again, that process has not been without its issues as well in relation to that directive. For example, when we introduced those regulations to the Scottish Parliament, there was a gap there in the implementation of the items that we would have wished to see banned. I think that the initial exclusion was that the UK Government were putting forward—it was more narrow than what we would have sought from a Scottish Government perspective. The UK regulations did not come into force until August, so we had a few months where there was that gap in implementation. Again, as much as it is important and we have the mechanisms where we can try to exclude that, it is not perfect. Okay, so we're going to only hope that we manage to get agreed points as we go forward. Thank you, convener. Ariann Burgess. Thanks, convener. Given that there's work being done in Scotland, this is a question about funding capacity resource for this additional work. We've got what you in your directive need to do in terms of policy in Scotland, then we've got the continuity act that we're tracking what's going on in the EU, and now we've got those common frameworks and the need to track the relationship between the four devolved nations. I wonder if there's a greed resource on funding that makes it possible for you to do that work well, or are we having to stretch between departments and move people around? It just seems that it's another layer of work that's having to take place, and is there funding for that? I mean, I don't know if officials would want to come in on that point in particular, but I suppose it comes back to what we were saying earlier. In some ways, it's built on existing structures that we had already, but I'm sure that Georgia would be able to say more in terms of what that means for their own personal workloads in relation to that. I think that it is positive on the whole in the way that we can collaborate together in relation to that. Yes, I mean, taking your specific point about continuity and alignment with EU law, obviously that's a Scottish Government position. It's not one that is shared by our colleagues in DEFRA, so while I'm sure that they will have some eye to developments in Brussels, they're not attempting to track it as closely as we would, so that's probably not an area where we can rely on a collaborative approach there to share the resources and do the job once for all the administrations. In other places, I mentioned earlier, the market monitoring group, a lot of the work there is done by DEFRA and we benefit from the work of their greater analytical capacity, but when it comes to keeping an eye on EU developments, that's probably something that we have to do more off for ourselves. Thanks, convener, and good morning. We've spoken about the challenges and the concerns, but how will the four administrations ensure transparency about the actual operation of the common frameworks? The second part of the question is about the working group meetings, and I was actually surprised when I saw the paper just how many there actually are. How do you, within the working group meetings, within each of the frameworks, how is information made available to Parliament and the public? At the moment, I mean, I've taken your first point about the transparency of the process. I know that that was a concern that was highlighted by those that have provided evidence to the committee in relation to that, and I understand and recognise the stakeholder concerns in relation to that. Again, I think that that's where we're actually keen to get the committee's feedback in terms of what that scrutiny process could be like going forward. I know that we have set out in the frameworks that we have at the moment in terms of how they would be monitored and reviewed, but that's where we want to hear from the committee's scrutiny as to how we could, if there's ways that we can improve the relaying of information, make that process more transparent then happy to consider any suggestions that come forward as a result of that. In terms of some of the reporting mechanisms that we have at the moment, I mean, I know that the committee will be aware that we publish the draft communiques from the interministerial group meetings that we have. We also provide an update after those meetings take place as to some of the areas that we've been working on or have been looking to discuss. I'm, again, more than happy to take any particular comments or suggestions once the committee's finished its scrutiny of this. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for coming along. You said in your introduction that it should be a collaboration among equals, so, following on from Beatrice Wishart's question, how does it feel like a collaboration between equals between how the devolved parliaments are working with Westminster? In relation to the development of the common frameworks, again, I would come back to I think it has been a really positive piece of work. I know that I'll be coming back to the committee in relation to the joint fisheries statement as an example of that, where I think that that's shown that when we do work together we can work together well. Again, it is just frustrating when I think that some of the examples I've mentioned earlier where we see that process being undermined or where it hasn't been quite adhered to. But I think that if all four governments are committed to that process and we are adhering to it, then I think that it does offer a really positive model of co-operation and how that could be used more widely across other different areas. I think that it sets a good example of collaboration between the different Governments. We're taking evidence from you with regard to this. I'm interested to know you made the point about whether we could feed back to you about thoughts that we have as a result of that. Is that discussed? Is further stakeholder and parliamentary engagement talked about at your meetings? Well, it hasn't been yet because I know that all the different parliaments have obviously been undertaking their own scrutiny processes, but I think that once we've been through all of that and that scrutiny process is complete, then we would be looking to engage to see what changes would be needed to the frameworks process because I think that the scrutiny that you've undertaken and the evidence that you've taken as well has been really important for us to see in areas within the frameworks that I think could be improved on the back of that. And I also know that stakeholder engagement came out really strongly, I think, in all the evidence and in relation to the House of Lords report that I mentioned earlier too, as to how we could better engage. I think that some of the points in the stakeholder engagement though, I think I recognise the concerns that have been raised in relation to that. But I do also think that we need to strike a fine balance there because we also need to have that space, I think, between the different Governments for that free and frank discussion that we need. It's also important to highlight that the common frameworks process that we have, it doesn't replace the stakeholder engagement that we currently undertake in policy development and it's not intended to replace that process. We would still be engaging with stakeholders in the normal way, as we normally do, whether that's bringing forward legislative proposals or looking at policy development. So I think I really would just want to emphasise that point that we're not replacing that.  Just before we move on, anybody tuning into the first few minutes of this would have got the impression that it was all a bit of a disaster and Westminster were ignoring the Scottish Government and it wasn't really working. It sounded pretty grim. Subsequent questions suggested that some of the policies that the Scottish Government might be undermining, but then ten minutes later you were saying that it was all very positive. Can you confirm whether the operation of the common frameworks within the four administrations is working well and does what it says in the tin? That's the thing. I wouldn't agree that I don't think I've contradicted myself because I think it is a really strong model. Again, if all administrations, as we've committed to, adhere to the process that we've set out, I think it could work well, but I think the problem is that we have seen that process undermined. Again, I talked through the example of the exclusions process. That was the first time we'd used it. It didn't work perfectly, so hopefully lessons will be learned from that as we move forward from here. If we all adhere to it, then I think it is a positive process and it's a good model, but that's the point. We need that to be adhered to. We also can't have that undermined by pieces of legislation brought forward, which is exactly what's set out to do. It constrains the policy choices that we can make, which is the complete opposite of what we all committed to through the common frameworks process. I presume that it also deals with the position that the Scottish Government wants to align with EU law, which is contrary to what some of the other administrations positions are, so the framework is there to deal with that. Yes, to be able to manage that policy divergence where that takes place. You mentioned the four-country approach there. I think I would slightly differ with the convener's take on some of that. I think it's presumably up to this Parliament to align if it chooses to align, but leave that be. Can I ask you to explain a bit more about, in practical terms, how the four-country approach works and how much room it leaves for such divergence, given it is this Parliament's choice whether it wishes to diverge or not? Absolutely. That's the thing. I don't know if it will be helpful for George again, as an outliner, to see if there are particular examples that we can talk through and how we've managed that. I mean, I talked about the precision breathing bill as one example where, unfortunately, the common frameworks process was bypassed, but we are now working through that there, because there could be divergence in relation to that. There could be an impact on that in Scotland, which we have to try and manage. I'll hand over to George. He'll be able to try it a bit more in the detail. Maybe the most useful bit of background is being right back to the start of this process. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, the set of principles that were agreed in the John ministerial committee back in 2017. One of those ones, the key one, is to enable the functioning of the UK internal market while acknowledging policy divergence. Quite fundamental to all the frameworks is the recognition that policy divergence can and will happen. The whole purpose of the framework is to make sure that we do that in as collaborative a fashion as we can do. Can I ask a little about how you've engaged with stakeholders on some of these issues? I was interested to hear you use the phrase, coach and horses. Of course, those of us who are on another committee, the Constitution Committee and the Parliament See Act, have heard that phrase used by NFUS, where they have described the, in fact, said that we've had the internal market act, which, as I said, almost drives a coach and horses through the principles of common frameworks. Do you feel that the existence of other legislation like that provides a direct threat to what you're trying to achieve through the common frameworks? Absolutely, because as much as we have an exclusions process, I think that that threat still remains. I think that the subsidy control act is another example of that, where all the concerns that we raise throughout that process, particularly in relation to agriculture, which we felt should not have been part of that regime in the first place, have just been completely ignored. I know that that's another specific example that's been used. Again, that's what's really frustrating and really worrying. As much as we commit to this process, there are those pieces of legislation that are a real threat to not just that process but to devolution. Finally, can you understand that the law society has also raised some of these issues in the words, I think, noting that there are no domestic legal constraints on the powers of the UK Parliament or the UK Government concerning common frameworks? I wonder, because of the sovereign nature of the UK Parliament and the backstop that it presents in all those matters, I just wonder what conversations you've had with the UK Government about how they intend to use those powers. Yes, I mean, I'll be happy to pass to you and you'll be able to provide more information on that. I suppose what I'm driving at is, do they, presumably, we've mentioned, two particular acts of the UK Parliament, do you have concerns that they could use it in other ways too? Yes, I would have concerns about that. I think that the key points to remember is that frameworks are non-legislative arrangements, they're not binding on any party. As the cabinet secretary has set out, that is in a way their strength, that they offer an alternative model of progress on managing the practical implications of managing regulatory coherence in a multi-level state by agreement rather than in position. We do, however, operate in the unique circumstances of the UK constitution, and Parliament remains sovereign. We have seen worrying developments since Brexit about repeated breaches of the sole convention with respect to legislation passing without the consent of the devolved administrations. The cabinet secretary has alluded to the retained EU law agenda and the concerns there. Certainly, the internal market act was an unwelcome and an anticipated intrusion on the development of common frameworks and was, of course, itself implemented without the consent of this Parliament. We're under no illusions about the challenges that we face and the specifics of the UK's constitutional arrangements, but common frameworks offer the best existing model for an alternative way of managing the practical day-to-day challenges of managing regulatory coherence in a devolved state like the United Kingdom. Stakeholders have highlighted that frameworks can pursue a different approach, but it also allows for different approaches where the four nations diverge, but they're still vital. Given that the four-country approach to regulation and decision making, can you give us examples or other areas where the framework will create a closer collaboration between the four nations than previously existed? I'll be happy to come back to the committee if I can think of specific examples in relation to that. As I've said in some of the previous responses that I've given, they build on existing models that we've had where we have strong collaboration. The animal health and welfare that you've seen and the framework that we've put forward there sets that out as well. There are a number of groups where we work together because, of course, when it comes to animal health, diseases don't respect borders, so it's important that we work together and we have that cross-collaboration. However, if there are further examples of that, I'd be happy to follow that up with the committee, or unless George is more in the moment. A small example, as the cabinet secretary said, a lot of that collaboration was already existing. One very specific bit that was introduced as a result of the agricultural support framework is a group specifically looking at cross-border holdings. Obviously, as part of the EU, we would have been looking within the UK at any effects between the different jurisdictions, but we've given a specific focus to that by establishing a group. In practical terms, that's a bigger issue between Wales and England because of the nature of our landscape, but it is of some relevance for Scotland as well, and we're part of that group. There's one example where, as a result of the frameworks, there is a greater focus and a greater collaboration than Hither 2. Looking back to 2016, supporters of Brexit said that it was about taking back control. However, I might argue that we can see that they meant Westminster taking back control from Scotland. I, too, sit on the SEAC committee and we took evidence from a variety of people. One was Professor McEwen and colleagues who suggested that frameworks could commit the Scottish Government to share or minimal standards and rules, potentially limiting the scope for action of the Scottish Parliament. What areas do you think we could be impacted with our devolved settlement? We've worked closely with Professor McEwen and many of our colleagues over the last years on those issues. I would probably disagree with the risk to frameworks imposing a constraint in devolved policymaking. That's not what they're there to do. They're not, in themselves, instruments for policy innovation. They're mechanisms for managing the change circumstances that we find ourselves in now that we're no longer in EU member states. George, earlier, told the JMCN principles that underpin frameworks. They have proved to be remarkably resilient and useful as a touchstone in understanding how frameworks operate. The principles are very clear that their frameworks operate in a way that respects the democratic accountability of the devolved institutions and the devolution settlements. It's hard to think of an example where we would be in a position where, through the frameworks process, we were seeking to impose a self-imposed constraint on devolved policy options as a result. That's not what frameworks are there to do. They're there to anticipate, notify and manage potential issues around inter-UK regulatory hearings at the earliest possible opportunity, so that kind of scenario should never arise. I wanted to ask whether the common frameworks have led to an increase in the devolved nation's decision-making powers. We've had more powers in relation to our decision-making as a result of what's flown through now from leaving the EU, but that's not the common frameworks in and of themselves don't give us more powers. They're there to set out a way of collaboration and working with each other in terms of how we manage that policy divergence. If that makes sense, I'll answer your question. Sorry, Ewan. Cabin sex is absolutely right. The frameworks have not conferred new powers or additional decision-making capacity to the devolved institutions. They are a mechanism for managing the change dispensation wherein, previously, we exercised devolved powers, including UK Government acting for England. We exercised devolved powers within a symmetrically applied framework provided by EU membership. It's the same powers being exercised in a different context, and frameworks offer a mechanism for managing the practical implications of that change context. I remind members that the session today with the cabinet secretary is to explore common frameworks within the remit of this committee, which is agriculture and not more broadly on constitutional issues around common frameworks. Our question should be focused on that. Alasdair. You were talking about evidence from farmers. We have a paper in front of us that focuses on the agricultural side of things. I just feel that we're concentrating a lot on the constitutional issues, rather than specifically about the common frameworks and how they affect agriculture, specifically, as the committee is supposed to do. In relation to the animal health and welfare framework, the framework sets out a preference for joint policy making, and the whole of animal health and welfare policy is on the scope of that, but that's in contrast to other frameworks. Why do some frameworks only include policy areas previously governed by EU law? I think that most other frameworks do that. I think that animal health and welfare, a common framework, is one area where it is more broad. I think that that's probably given the nature of the issues that we're dealing with. As I've highlighted in a previous response as well, animal health doesn't respect borders. We have a strong history of collaboration that you can see that from some of the decision making forum that already exists, that is listed in the framework and in our ways of working. I think that it's really important, and I think that it's a really positive development that we look at those policy areas in the round in terms of how we collaborate with each other. In relation to the divergence between Scotland and other areas of the UK, I'm right in thinking right now that there's an avian flu housing policy in England, but it's not in Scotland, because there's about 80 cases in England, but there's only four here in Scotland. I would refer back to 2000 when we had foot and mouth. It was a Scottish decision that was taken to close immediately. We found a case in Scotland where, as south of the border, they took a week to make that decision, and as such there was a much bigger spread down south. Surely we would be wanting to retain our own ability to make decisions here in Scotland on animal health and welfare. Absolutely, and we didn't change that anyway. You've given that example there, and if you want further details in relation to that, then I'd be happy to write to the committee as to the decisions that we've taken in relation to that as well, but, like I say, that wouldn't be impacted by the framework. That has not the reverse happened this time, where England has had a lockdown in relation to avian flu, for example keeping cat birds inside, whereas Scotland hasn't this time. Just for the record, is that not the reverse of what Jim just said that's happening this week? That highlights the point that I'm trying to make. We should have our own retained— But we do. I'm highlighting that fact. That's what I'm saying. We still have that ability in the common framework. I just think that it is important in this committee, considering the significant concern that farmers have with avian flu right now, is that we put that on the record. I think that the point related to the frameworks is that we have daily, probably several times daily, contact between the chief veterinary officers of the different administrations, looking at the situation in the ground in each part of the UK so that they can then advise ministers and the respective administrations of the appropriate course of action to take the avian influenza example. We've got a really acute situation, particularly in East Anglia, dreadful for the producers and not good for all the other stakeholders involved, including the animal and plant health agency. There is close interaction between the administrations, particularly at chief veterinary officer level. That was exactly the point that I was making. There's already close collaboration on those things, therefore we're still talking about what it is that's contained in the paper. What I would like to move on to, though, is the Scottish Government's degree of understanding of the policy divergence that will be accepted within the common frameworks and how that divergence will be assessed. I think that that's why we have the common frameworks processes really to assess and to discuss at a really early stage. I know that that's part of what's set out in each of the common frameworks as well is to ensure that we're sharing information early and that we try and resolve any potential issues as early as possible without needing that escalation. But it's to ensure that we discuss at an early stage if it looks like there may be a policy divergence to then have those discussions as to what the impacts of that might be and how that could then potentially be managed. Going back to 2016, I very clearly remember asking the head of the Tory party here in Scotland and David Mundell where the governance of what would happen in agriculture would lie post-EU exit. We were told that there would be far more power coming to Scotland. That was the repeated mantra that would be far more power coming to Scotland. We have the decision making policy right now on what the new agricultural support system will be. Given the subsidy control bill or the subsidy control act that it now is brought in by the UK Government, do you have any concerns that what it is that we are trying to do here could fulfill of that act at a later point? Those have been the concerns that we've reiterated right through the process of the passage of that bill and now act. It is really frustrating that none of those concerns were either addressed or we didn't see that the act amended in any way that would have resolved the concerns that we have. I know that officials are working together now on the guidance and what the practical implications of that are going to be. I understand that those conversations are on-going, but that is one of the biggest threats and concerns that we have outlined to the committee previously. How do the common frameworks protect your ability to put that policy in place to ensure that the policies that we want to implement here in Scotland in terms of agricultural support will be what the Scottish Government intended to be? How do the common frameworks protect that? We would be discussing at an early stage what our proposals are and how we would be intending to bring that forward. I am sure that George can talk through more of the detail as to how that works its way through that process. I think that that is what I have come back to the previous concerns that I have. That is a really positive and collaborative way of working, but at the same time you have those pieces of legislation coming from the side that do seek to undermine that and which could constrain our policy choices. I think that working on the guidance is really important to see what the practical implications of the subsidy control act are going to be, because that has been our concern right throughout that it would constrain the policy choices that we make here. The direction that we might like to take could be completely hampered by that legislation and some of the principles that are within it. For example, when we have a very different landscape here, some of the voluntary and coupled support schemes that we have do not exist in other parts of the UK. We have them for a very specific reason because we want to continue to support people that are farming in the most difficult terrain and the most remote and rural parts of the country. We were concerned that the subsidy control act would hamper our ability to do that or that there could be disputes further down the line in relation to that. Again, we will continue to work through the process and, as I said, George will talk through how that practically works. Let me come back in very quickly, George, before you bamboozle me with the science of it. The UK Government's policy has been very much geared towards—I do not know if it has changed or not, because there has been quite a bit of turbulence over the past couple of weeks since I have not been home. My understanding is that the UK Government's position is that by 2027 all direct support will be taken away and that the process down south will be entirely based around the environment and controls and access to land, whereas the Scottish Government's preferred option is still to retain 50 per cent—that is the quota figure whether that is correct or not—of direct payments in order to continue to allow support for food production. Is that the kind of area that will cause concerns and will common frameworks allow you to protect that position? That is where the common frameworks process allows us to try and address or to work through potential issues where that may emerge, but, again, they will not in themselves necessarily protect that if you have another piece of legislation from the side that completely undermines it. Ultimately, the subsidy control bill could overrule the common frameworks that you want to put forward or the negotiating position that you have put forward in the common frameworks. That is the policy that we want to address. The UK Government has a completely different policy, which diverges from yours and, therefore, that piece of legislation could overrule the work of the common frameworks. Is that what you are saying? That is the legislation and, again, we do not have the common frameworks as a legislative mechanism. That means that we will agree to work through 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 that I have said about the UK Internal Market Act and the subsidy control bill, because it undermines that process. I think that that has been recognised through the House of Lords and the work that they have done on that as well. George Bambu is aware of the science of how this is going to work. You are correct that the subsidy control act and the internal market act as legislation would take precedence over anything that is in the framework. The internal market act, to be fair, recognises that one of the reasons that UK ministers might seek to introduce exceptions to the market access principles is specifically because of something that might have been agreed through a common framework process. It is not all one way, but the legislation would take precedence over anything that is here. In terms of agricultural support, as an example that has been used, the mechanism set out in the framework would be essentially that discussions would take place principally in the policy collaboration group between the administrations. We regularly see in that group administrations coming forward, setting out in broad terms the policies that they are intending to bring forward. That is an opportunity for each administration to say, oh wait a minute, hold on, great. You can do what you want in your administration, but that causes a problem for the internal market or for divergence. That is the opportunity that we have within that group and potentially for that to be escalated up ultimately to the interim ministerial group. We have had at several of the recent interim ministerial groups quite good discussions. The last meeting was hosted by the Welsh Government at which they were setting out the proposals that they had just launched a consultation on. The framework has essentially provided that opportunity for the administrations to explain to the others what they are doing for other administrations to raise a red flag if there are any difficulties with what they see. We also have the World Trade Organization agreement and agriculture process at the risk of bamboozling, so there is a formal mechanism that all administrations must provide advance notice of schemes of agricultural support, ultimately for notification to the World Trade Organization. There are formal mechanisms there that we are all using. I see you, Rachel. I wonder how the common frameworks interact with the market principles of non-discrimination and mutual recognition, where a devolved Government can take a different policy journey, shall we say?  The market access principles set out in the internal market act apply across the board. There are in that act some exceptions for issues of food safety, for instance, that different decisions can be taken, but generally they are across the board and any departure from that would require the use of the exceptions process that is set out in the act. We have talked earlier about the use of that so far in relation to single-use plastics, but that is the mechanism. If it is covered by the market access principles, basically we have little choice unless one of the exceptions applies. I think that that is precisely the point. It is useful here to contrast the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, which are common to most internal market regimes and are at the centre of how the European single market operates. In that, in the ESM, they operate as broad legal principles that can be applied. In the internal market act, there are rigid statutory requirements, so there is much less flexibility to tailor policy in a way that recognises local needs and conditions. As George has alluded to, there is much less, by the way, of a derogations and exemptions set out in statute. It is a very small number of issues relating to good, crudely things that might kill you if they were not there, plant health emergencies, chemicals and pesticides and so forth. The European single market has the principle of a rolling recognition that member states can, while observing the broad legal principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, make the case for legislation disregarding the in pursuit of wider environmental, social or economic goals, for example. That is the kind of difference. The internal market act is much less flexible and much more rigid statutory regime. That creates problems for tailoring local policy and ensures that devolved legislation has its intended effect. It is why it is such a difficult issue to manage in the context of developing common frameworks. It has been one of the main reasons why the process of development of frameworks has taken as long as it has, as we try to work out those issues. Arrianne Burgess. If we get a chance to, we will come back to you, John. Digging down a little bit more into divergence, the soil association raises a number of concerns in their call for views. Around the framework for organic production, it states that there is an existing disagreement between parties on whether certain matters are devolved or reserved. It points out that it is concerning that there is such a lack of clarity about what is devolved and what is reserved several years after the UK officially left the EU. I am curious to learn from you in that specific framework what work is being done to generate that clarity. We have an ambition around organic production and it would be useful to hear what is going on there. No problem. It is really frustrating that we are still in that place and have had been lasing with the UK Government over that, so we still remain in dispute over the exact responsibilities in relation to organics. However, I do not think that that hampers too much in terms of the work that we would be looking to take forward through that framework. Liam George, I do not know if you want to comment on that. The difference of view between the administrations is principally around some of the import, export control elements of organics. Our view is that more of that is devolved than the UK Government takes the view, but what the framework provides is a way through that, a modus vendi, if you like, for us, so that despite that disagreement we can effectively park that and get on with it. It sets out a way of making sure that we can still recognise organic certification bodies and all the other functions that need to be carried out so that we can do that on a collaborative basis. There is a disagreement in the same way that in other areas we have had disagreements with the UK Government on some of the fair dealing and supply chains provisions in the agriculture act on producer organisations. However, we try to not let that get in the way of actually making progress. In terms of stakeholders who are working within that area, if we have parked an aspect, how are you communicating to them that we are moving forward? It is okay. The guidance that is published if you are needing to export or import organic products will set out that this is the body that you contact so that there is no dubiety from the point of view of stakeholders or businesses what they need to do. In effect, we will make sure that the outward communication to stakeholders takes account of the accommodation that we have reached as to how we are going to work. Where that may have had an impact, I am sure that you can correct me if I am wrong in relation to that as well, particularly in relation to notification of SIs where I think we do not get notified if they believe it or the Parliament has not been notified in that regard. I think that is where we have flagged that and raised that with the committee previously and why we continue to raise that with the UK Government. That is where we see one of the main impacts of that. We have heard from some stakeholders who have expressed a view that the common framework should underline minimum standards and commit to non-regression, and only some of the frameworks set the baseline standards. For example, the plant varieties and seeds frameworks set out an intention to maintain minimum standards across the UK with opportunity for nations to flex above those standards where appropriate. I am interested to know why there are different approaches to the standards and if it would not be better an improvement to set the baseline to have that consistently across the common frameworks. On the consistency point more broadly, I know that that is an issue that has been raised and again that is why we want to go through this great new process and to reflect on any particular comments that come out in relation to that. You talked about one of the other frameworks there, that was in relation to plant health, but we also have the same in relation to animal health and welfare, where we have set the minimum of standards that we would expect to adhere to as a result of that. If there are particular comments from the committee in relation to that, we are more than happy to consider it. Those ones in particular, I think, where we are dealing with animal health and welfare, I think that it makes sense for us to have that baseline and to start from there. We have heard about the interaction between the forthcoming agricultural bill and the subsidy control act and how they may interact. Can you tell us whether there is any implications in the same regard with the fisheries framework and the subsidy control act? I am not able to give a lot more detail on that at the moment, because again those are one of the issues that we are working through. I referred to earlier in relation to subsidy control and officials working together in relation to the guidance through that. That is also an area in relation to fisheries and aquaculture that we are working on at the moment as well, but I would be happy to keep the committee updated on that. That would be useful. If there is anything that comes up, if you could write to the committee on that, that would be helpful. With what we are talking about earlier on in relation to the policy divergence, the EU policy allowed the Scottish Government to have ELFAS. Do you see any concerns going forward with a similar type of policy being introduced to the Scottish Agricultural Support Bill within the UK Government's internal market act or subsidy control bill? That was in the response that I had provided earlier. I was outlining some of the support that we gave at ELFAS that was in my mind when we were discussing that. Again, that is support that we offer in Scotland that is not offered elsewhere in the UK. Where we saw the real threat to that was from the subsidy control act. Do you have a concern that that potential for you to implement something like that is going to... Yes, we still have that concern with the subsidy control act because, again, there weren't any amendments made that had actually resolved any of the concerns that we'd raised in relation to it. Okay, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. I have a few points that Jim Felly is making. It might be useful, not maybe right now, but if the Cabinet Secretary could provide the committee with the powers that relate to following our exit from the EU that related solely to reserve matters, but now relate to Scotland. The new powers that will be conferred on Scotland relating to agriculture and the islands would be interesting to have an understanding of which powers that were solely related to reserves and matters now are relating to Scotland. I'd be happy to set that out in the concerns. I'm sure or I'm not aware if the committee has been copied into all the correspondence that we've had with the UK Government. I know that my colleague Ivan McKee was dealing with that with his UK Government counterparts in relation to the subsidy control bill, but I'd be happy to provide that information as well as that further evidence that we've provided. Thank you. Karen Adam. Thank you, convener. Good morning. We've spoken a bit about the Scottish Government choosing to keep regulatory alignment with EU frameworks. I was just wondering if we could dig a bit into the reason in why and what are the benefits of doing this? We've made that policy decision and set that out right from the start that we want to remain aligned with the EU, ultimately for our reaccession as well, but we also want to maintain the minimum, the standards that have been set by the EU, but to go further than that if we can and if we feel that's appropriate as well. We do think that that's an important starting point even in terms of facilitating trade. We've seen the problems that have emerged where there hasn't been that commitment in relation to maintaining that alignment, so that's certainly from our perspective where we're coming from in relation to that. Thank you. Is there anything in particular that we should be aware of on this committee in regards to keeping that alignment with EU regulations within those frameworks? Is there anything at the moment that's a priority for us? I'd be happy to come back to you with further information in relation to that and to keep the committee appraised, but that could well be, I don't know if that's an area for potential further monitoring and review when we look to the consideration of the frameworks in that regard. Sorry, George, I don't know if you want to come in. Just to say the obvious example of that is the retained EU law bill, because as that is proposed on the face of it to sunset all of the retained EU law in the space, that's a considerable divergence from the EU position. Now, where the UK Government and the bill will end up remains to be seen, but that's probably the biggest thing that's happening in the divergent space at the moment. As you saw to know, thank you. Rachael Hamilton. Cymru on that question. The Scottish Government have the powers to adopt, amend and abandon retained EU law. Which of those would you scrap or retain with regards to the portfolio for islands and agriculture? In relation to EU law—Retained EU law—that's part of the problem with the retained EU law bill though, because there is so much of that that is relevant to particularly this portfolio, this committee and the NZET committee as well. I mean to quantify that, no doubt you'll be aware of Food Standard Scotland, the response that they had to the publication of that bill, because that would be a massive undertaking and exercise to go through if we had to replace retained EU law, because the timescale for that is the end of December next year. What work has the Government done on that? Obviously, there are laws that perhaps are not useful to agriculture and islands or there may be laws that are, and the Scottish Government also has the ability to amend, but has there been any work done on which laws EU retained laws would be adopted, amended or abandoned? I think that some of that is set out in the framework, and I think that in the animal health and welfare framework menu later, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, it refers to about 500 pieces of legislation of which 108 refer to animal health and welfare policy, so this isn't a small amount that we're looking at here. Maybe just to say that quite a bit of that work was actually done at the point that we did the deficiency fixing. So for example, the single common market organisation regulations part of common agricultural policy, a behemoth of a regulation, at the point that we deficiency fixed that, there were some significant chunks of that on support for the sugar sector, on olive groves that we simply deleted, that was by agreement between all the administration. So we've already done quite a lot of the clearing out that said, I have no doubt there are probably bits of old regulation that are still hanging about on the statute book that could be set to one side as a sort of sensible tidying up exercise, that is of course not what the retained EU law build as it basically takes everything off the statute book unless there is intervention. Rachel, do you want to continue with your line of question? Are you wanting me to ask my actual question? Yes, please. Thanks, convener. Yesterday was the third reading of the genetic technology bill at Westminster, and we know how that could possibly support Scottish farmers with innovation and meeting net zero targets, improving food quality and helping with the food supply issues that we have right now. I just wondered whether the Scottish Government would be taking an exclusion to the genetic technology bill. I mean, I would come back to, I know it's my colleague, Mary McCallan, who's been leading on that element of work as well, but I think, again, just highlight the frustration that this is one thing that jumped to the common frameworks process when it's the exact kind of issue that we should have been considering through it as well, so I know that it's going back through that process now in relation to the plant varieties and technology. That's the framework, I think. Yeah, in relation to that too, but I'd be happy to come back with further information in relation to that. Okay, Ewan, you mentioned earlier the exclusion that Scotland took on the single use plastics. Could you relate to any examples within that process that might be relevant to the rural affairs and islands portfolio with regard to taking a UK IMA? I think I'd defer to George in the policy detail on that. I think an important point to recognise is that Scotland cannot just take an exception, the powers to grant exceptions or exclusions from the internal market act are conferred only on the secretary of state, so we can simply seek to persuade the UK government to introduce an exception. In terms of market access and goods, the example on single use plastics is so far, I think, the only exclusion that has been pursued. In some ways, that was more tricky because it was the first one through the process. In other ways, it was easier because actually all administrations were heading in pretty much the same direction to restrict single use plastics and the difference was more one of timescales in the different administrations. So in some ways that was almost an easy one to deal with. I suspect that on precision breeding, where there is a greater policy divergence between the administrations, getting an exclusion is going to be a rather more of an uphill task. Just on that, Scottish farmers don't want to be looking over the hedge to see English farmers with a competitive advantage. Do you, on these particular issues, have distinct conversations with farmers and those who will be affected by, perhaps, let's use it in simplistic terms, taking an exclusion from the genetic technology bill? We do have regular engagement with our stakeholders anywhere where issues such as that can be raised. That would be the forum by which we discuss the policy that we are seeking to take or to develop. I don't know if that answers your question. It's just that so many stakeholders have different views. We know that anyone from the organic farming movement don't necessarily want the Scottish Government to take an exclusion on that particular bill. However, there are many others who are, I suppose, farmers dealing in traditional agricultural commodities who don't want to be looking over that hedge to see English farmers with a competitive advantage. I wondered within this whole process, I don't know what the process is that you follow. Yes, there is stakeholder engagement, but we hear so many different views here. How do you translate that into the policy that you create? I know that you are not leading on this, Ms Mary McCallum. To be honest, I suggest that we don't focus specifically on the genetic modification bill, but the general approach that you would have to look to get an exception and how you make your case for that. Can you also consider your answer to the single-use plastic that we've touched on? It was a bit messy, but it didn't go particularly well. If you're looking for exceptions again, what lessons have you learned and what different approach would you take? If you could put all that in your answer, if you'd like. Yes, no problem. I think I would just come back to what I said earlier about the common frameworks in itself won't address that problem, because it's the mechanism that we deal that if we were taking a different position to the UK Government, it's how we manage that divergence and what that might look like and how we consider the implications of that. It doesn't replace our normal process of policy development or engagement with stakeholders. That's the issue that I have in the round across the portfolio. We deal with stakeholders with very different, sometimes very different polarised views, and then you have to listen to that. That's obviously the responsibility of my role and then determine how you're going to take that policy forward. The common frameworks itself do not replace that process. In relation to the exemptions and the process from that, again, it's important that we learn the lessons. George was saying that that was the first time that we'd been through that process and really testing the water of that as well. It was more, I think, from the UK Government side. I think that it would be fair to say in terms of when they brought their regulations forward, the gap in implementation that we had in relation to that and the fact that it was an order in scope than what we'd had. Again, all we can do is learn the lessons as to how that example was taken through as we looked to deal with similar issues as we go forward. I was really just to ask on the single-use plastics issue that's been mentioned there about the lessons going forward for how you would deal with the UK Government again if similar issues arose. I spoke a couple of observations. It was the first outing for the exclusions process, so understandable if processes take time to bed and people understand what's being asked of them at different stages. The process itself is fairly straightforward and is appended to a written ministerial statement laid in the House of Commons in early 2021, which we can send the link of that to the committee if they don't have it. It's simply about a ministerial commitment to use the delegated powers of the act to give an exclusion where agreement of policy of the versions has been reached in a framework and then how that works, which is just around the exclusions seeking party using the framework structures to notify. The lessons to be learned are all parties being clear about decision points, what has been agreed at a particular point, about minimising the scope for reopening issues where agreement has been reached and giving effect to an exclusion in a timely manner. That's probably the three broad pieces of learning that we'll be looking at applying to future exclusions processes. That's useful. Just in practicality, when an exemption is suggested or requested, at what point do all the devolved nations get involved? Is that from the outset? So if there's a request for, for example, single use plastics, do the Welsh and Northern Island assemblies get involved in that discussion or negotiation from the outset or only when there's a potential issue as part of the framework? I think that the general purpose of the framework is that we deal with these issues at as low a tier in the structure as possible. So an issue like that, say it was in the agriculture space, the policy collaboration group that I've mentioned a couple of times, would be the obvious place official to official for that to be raised. That would probably be at the initial stages one administration saying, oh, they're planning to pursue a policy in this area, they foresee the need that that might require an internal market act exemption. So there would be sort of advanced notice given to the other administrations, the work would then be between probably in that same group. Whichever administration is proposing it is the one that has to set out the details of what we're being looked for. That would go through, as I say, in the agriculture space, the policy collaboration group, equivalent groups in other other policy areas, and to the interministerial group. Essentially that's the process that was followed in relation to single use plastics. As you said, there have been some bumps along the way at one stage. There was something that we thought had been agreed between the administrations at official level and then at an interministerial group. It seemed that that wasn't quite the case. Nevertheless, we've managed to work through that. I suppose that the other lesson just to throw in quickly is that the lesson is that we were right that seeking broader exemptions is probably, we would say, the better way forward. Because otherwise, the UK Government and Parliament and this committee as well is probably going to get a series of narrow exemptions as, if DEFRA chooses to take a slightly wider approach to single use plastics or the Welsh Government, we potentially get a series of incremental instruments having to be made rather than actually accepting the outset. Actually, we're all heading in roughly the same direction in this space. We should take a broad exception so that we don't have to get into the debate every single time, but we'll see how we get on. Okay, so just to get it clear on my head. The practical way to do this would be through the policy collaboration group, which has several servants from the four nations and then the senior official programme board, which has representation from the four nations to to scrutinise it and look at any potential issues, and then that would go to the inter ministerial group where potentially a final decision is agreed. Okay, thank you. Sorry, Ian. Just very quickly, your original question, I think, was probing the idea. Would the initial engagement based bilateral between the DEA and UKG frameworks are, the default is that those are multilateral fora for engagement. Actually, the single use plastics example means that you're gleaning useful information from Welsh Government and its own parallel plans, as George said, when moving in the same space. Just to emphasise, that process also applies to UK Government. Should it wish to seek an exclusion for a devolved policy affecting only England, it's not a one-way street with devolved Governments seeking an exclusion from UKG. That's hugely helpful to have a practical idea of how we go through the process. Thank you for that, that's useful. Rachel Hamilton. No, I've, well, do you want me to toss the next one? Yes please. We're on the next one. Okay, so it's really about how future trade agreements will interact with the common frameworks within the remit that you have as cabinet secretary. I will, that's the thing. I set out in some of the frameworks as well, recognising how that could be dealt with and it refers to within that about the trade specific engagement fora that there are as well. So, again, I don't have to be helpful to have an illustrative example, obviously, we've been through the process with some free trade agreements, so I'll hand over to George who can give a bit more detail on that. Okay, so again looking at the agriculture space, as well as the group set out in this framework, there's a group called the trade engagement group that has been running for several years and that, again, is all four administrations working together. At various points, that's been looking at, you know, themes, for instance, you know, what would we want to seek in trade agreements on, you know, provisions on sanitary, fighter sanitary, antimicrobial resistance and the like. So that's discussion between DEFRA and the other administrations. Ultimately, of course, trade agreements are being pursued by other parts of the UK government. The evolved administrations don't have a direct involvement in that, so at most we are sort of advisory into that process and then once a trade agreement is agreed it becomes an international obligation and then we and the other administrations are obliged to observe and implement it, which in some cases might require legislative amendments. So then you get into the process of, you know, those legislative amendments would have to be considered and agreed through the framework process between the administrations. Were there legislative amendments that had to be considered to export land to the US, for example? Not on this side of the Atlantic. It required changes in the United States to their legislation. Of course, that was not in pursuit of a full trade agreement. That was simply a bilateral agreement on that very specific subject. I'm interested in the trading engagement group. Who represents Scotland within that sphere? Is it civil servants? It's civil servants, yes. I think for a large part of the last several years that it's been me, I'm also the representative of the policy collaboration group, the senior officials programme board and a regular attender alongside the cabinet secretary at the interim ministerial group. My other question on that group is that you define the difference between trade agreements in the UK to the trade agreement group and the different scope of the work within that group. What kind of discussions do you have within that trade agreement group about agriculture and fisheries? I mean, what scope do you have? It has been principally looking at, as I mentioned, the sanitary and fighter sanitary provisions that commonly occur within trade agreements. Some of the detail of that, the very specific groups on animal health and plant health, we defer to the experts on those particular topics. One area that we've not been able to engage with in the trade engagement group has been on some of the market access and the tariffs, which, probably for us, is significant or not a more significant issue, but that is something that has been very generously guarded by the Department for International Trade. Our engagement and trade engagement group is with DEFRA in the main. There is also some work now. There is an environment group that has been set up that will pick up some of the environmental aspects of trade agreements. Some of the evidence that we gathered specifically from the Soil Association Scotland talked about a group, the EU civil dialogue group, which was used to pull together evidence from stakeholders, whether they are producers, specifically involved in organic production. They have commented that this group is missing from the structure of the common frameworks. I am interested to know, and you talked about routes of engagement, Cabinet Secretary, how the Scottish Government or perhaps how this committee can ensure that the stakeholders, I think that we have touched on a bit earlier, can be engaged in the process. That is one point that I have taken strongly from the evidence that the committee has heard, as well as from the House of Lords evidence as well. I know that broadly everybody thinks that there should be a greater opportunity for that within the frameworks. Again, I am more than happy to consider any particular suggestions that the committee would have in that regard in relation to stakeholder engagement. I am also coming back to the point that I had made earlier about that we still need to be able to ensure that we can have that free and frank discussion with other administrations within the UK and also that this is not replacing the normal stakeholder engagement that we have. I am more than happy to hear any particular comments from the committee. I suppose that we have got to ensure that there is enough time built into the timetable to allow that scrutiny and engagement to happen. Absolutely. Just briefly on that, I think that we have touched on the EU civil dialogue group and how it is the previous set-up under the EU gave certain stakeholders, particularly in the case of organics stakeholders, a voice. Are there any other groups that we need to reinvent to try and ensure that stakeholders are involved in the way that they were when we were still a member of the European Union? That is not meant as a trick question, but I am curious to know if there are other things that we need to reinvent apart from our reputation in the world. I think that probably in relation to leaving the EU, we have lost access to a number of groups and forums that we would have been part of previously. I think that when I had given evidence to the committee before in relation to the joint fisheries statement, that was one thing that we highlighted. When you look at our Marine Scotland science, which is a leader in relation to Europe and the work that it undertakes in the marine labs, there is no doubt that we suffer now from not having the same links as what we had before and not having the same access. To stakeholders, I would come back to the same point that I made previously. It does not change how we develop policy because we would still be engaging with stakeholders in the normal way. I think that another example in relation to some of the loss of access that we previously would have had with the EU that we do not have now is through the European Food Safety Authority as well and the implications that that has had for us. That meant that we have had to put an entirely new process into place in GB that involves the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland and it has also added extra complexity and complications for businesses to adhere to different processes as well. Those are probably the few examples that are useful, if that is helpful. We are going to move on to the loss of capacity for EU scientific agencies in the next question. I do not know whether the vast majority to that question has been asked, but Karen, you may have supplemented on that. Because we have lost that access to the EU scientific agencies, what does that look like for the working groups and for them gaining access to that scientific advice? What can we start looking to do now and what was really the fallout of that? The previous example that I highlighted there meant that, for example, it is the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland that has had to be involved in that new process. That is one specific example. I do not know if officials have any more at the moment that it would be useful to highlight, but I would be happy to follow that up with the committee and provide more detail as to some of the wider implications of that and losing that access. I think that EFSA is perhaps the best example. We have not lost access completely. If a novel food goes to EFSA for risk assessments and consideration, we would still see the output from that process. That can be used by FSA and FSS when they do—assuming that there is a similar application in GB—that they can use that, although they cannot simply say, okay, Europe has done it, therefore we will just automatically do the same thing. I suppose that the loss there is more. You see the output at the end of the process. You do not see what is going on within the EFSA process along the way, so we are rather blind to developments on the European stage. Another example of that, perhaps one of the very influential groups is Scopaf, the Standing Committee on Plant, Animal Food and Feed. That is determining your maximum residue levels and the likes in products. That is quite significant for Scotland. We are no longer part of that. We know that they are working on some topics at the moment. There could be a significant impact on Scottish industry, but we are not party to the detail of what is going on. Essentially, we are restricted to what can be seen in the public domain. I am interested to know how the newly established environment standard to Scotland will be able to scrutinise decision making within the common frameworks processes or feeding with their development ideas? I suppose that I would start off by saying that the role of ESS is to assess the compliance with environmental law. I think that the frameworks in and of themselves do not alter that or the role of public bodies that would be engaged with that as well. Obviously, as we are potentially looking to if there were any legislative changes that were due to be made, I imagine that they would have an interest in that. However, in relation to the frameworks themselves, I do not know how much of a role they would be expected to have or the input that they would expect to have on that. I am just very conscious of the time. Can you allow us another two questions? That would be much appreciated. Thank you very much. How does the Scottish Parliament get informed about decisions on where an exemption to the UK internal market act has been sought? How do you get told and how do we get told? I think that I mentioned previously how we inform the committees of some of the work that is undertaken in relation to the interministerial group. For example, we have the communiques. We also send over a note of some of the items that have been discussed. In relation to the exclusions process in particular, that would have taken part through the NSET committee. I think that the Parliament is notified at the point at which the second legislation goes through. However, in terms of the earlier engagement in that, I do not know if officials would have any more information as to whether there had been any prior engagement with the committee previous to that, given that is the only example that I have. The cabinet secretary is right that the record of it would effectively be in the communiques from the interministerial group. Once regulations are actually coming forward, there is a process in place. The Scottish ministers' consent is generally required to those. There is agreement with the Parliament on the process involving committees before ministers are able to signal that consent. At that stage, there is a formal process. I suppose that the gap at the moment would be if an exception has been sought by one administration but not agreed to, that would obviously not go through that process. However, I would expect that if we were in that situation, that might become a fairly significant feature in the notes from interministerial groups. What information would provide to the Parliament to enable it to monitor the functioning of the frameworks themselves and be able to input into review and further development of the frameworks? Of the Parliament in monitoring and reviewing the frameworks, I think that that is really important as part of the process. Between the different Governments, we have been discussing how that might look, but again that is a point that I am keen to hear from the committee as to what you think that scrutiny can or what it should look like. In relation to that role, it is also open to consideration of that if there are ways that you think that it can be improved beyond what is set out in the frameworks as they are at the moment. I am very quickly just—this programme of parliamentary engagement with the four UK legislatures is an essential part of the finalisation of frameworks. There is already some good work done by the House of Lords committee and elsewhere on these questions around future reporting. Mr Allan, in particular, will know from the work that the constitution committee is undertaking and looking in the round at how the Parliament fulfills its scrutiny function in a very changed environment and frameworks internal market continuity act. The boundaries are blurred between a lot of these considerations, so we are engaging directly with the officials on that and the constitution committee on some of those questions around future reporting and notification. The committee has certainly had concerns relating to the detail that accompanies SIs and legislation that we have got to look at, timescales and whatever. I know that it will form part of our discussions on our work programme to see how we address that. The important thing that I get overall is that there is a sense that common frameworks are a positive way. It is about collaboration through agreement rather than in position. I am just curious to hear could a common framework be created in the future where currently the areas are reserved or legislated for by Westminster and, therefore, strengthening devolution instead? As I have said, it is a positive model that we could see more widely in terms of how we can engage in some of those issues. One example in that space, and I do not think that we would count it as a formal framework, the frameworks that have a very specific purpose, is in relation to protected geographical indications for foods. We accept a reserved matter and, nevertheless, we manage to agree with the UK Government and the other Administrations a process whereby all those Administrations are involved in the consideration of any proposals that come forward from any part of GB. There is an area where, ultimately, the decisions are still for the Secretary of State, but there is rather more formal involvement in that process than hitherto. So, not specifically a new common framework but that there are areas of agreed collaboration that seems to come forward more? Common frameworks, their genesis was in a very specific purpose to consider the management of policy divergence in areas of devolved competence to intersect with EU law when we were in EU member state. The cabinet secretary is absolutely right that the value here is recognising the benefits that accrue from taking a frameworks approach to other areas, including reserved matters that impact differently or more significantly in Scotland. Seeing them as mechanisms to the founded incorporation rather than just putting more grit in the system is to everyone's benefit and makes for better policy. That is probably a positive note to end on. At the moment, the common frameworks have been put together and it is a firefighting approach to ensure that we get legislation in place, but, from what you said, it would appear that, in the future, common frameworks could indeed be a way to promote devolved priorities. It is about that collaboration on the basis that we are working together as equals, so I think that it is a really positive way of working. Providing that everybody adheres to that process, I think that it can be a really positive way forward. Thank you very much on that note. It is a very cluttered and complicated topic, but your answers have certainly helped us today. I am not going to suspend the meeting, but we are going to continue because we have only got one other item of business in public, which is the consideration of consent notification relating to UKSI, the animals and animal health feed and food plants and plant health amendment regulation 2022, and I refer members to paper 3 on page 27. I also draw members' attention to the minister for the green-skilled circular economy and biodiversity letter that was sent on 31 October. That letter indicates that the provision that amended article 18 of the plant health regulation has been removed from the SI and will be incorporated in a different SI, which will be notified to the Parliament later in November. Do any members have any comments on the notification? Are members content with the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out in the notification being included in the UK rather than the Scottish subordinate legislation? That concludes our business in public. I will now move into private session.


The hands-on experience is probably one of my most favorites here. I usually struggle with sitting in just a lecture room for hours, just listening to someone talk and having to write notes. They learn a lot in the first eight weeks, and then they start out in the salon and start building by working on clients, and they just gain a ton of confidence by the time they leave. They're ready to work in a salon. It's just fun because it's very hands-on, and we get to do what we want to do almost right away. It's really neat to see them grow. It's just great real-world experience for them. The first time we ever worked on an actual client, I probably have never been more scared of my life, and then, I mean, now I feel confident. I want to do it. I look forward to doing it. So it's just I feel really prepared for my future.