 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 15th meeting of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee in session 6. Before we begin, I remind committee members using electronic devices to switch them to silence. Our first item of business this morning was to be consideration of two notifications from Scottish ministers for consent to UKSIs. The cabinet secretary has written to the committee, however, to confirm that the Scottish Government has withdrawn the notification for the official controls, extension of transitional period, amendment 2, Regulation 2021, as it now intends to make provision via Scottish SI. The clerks circulated the letter to members on receipt. Members will note that the SSI will need to have come into effect by 1 January. Do members have any comments on the withdrawal of the SI? That means that we only have one notification to consider today. The approved countries list animals and animal products, amendment 2, Regulation 2021, and refer members to papers 1 and 2, pages 3 to 14 in our paper packs. Under the protocol between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, the consent notification has been categorised as type 1, meaning that the Scottish Parliament's agreement is sought before the Scottish Government gives consent to the UK Government laying the instruments. First, members will note that the clerks sought further information from the officials in advance of today's meeting, and this information has been circulated to members. Second, in responding to the Scottish Government and a set-out in paragraph 31 on page 12, I suggest that the committee asks the Scottish Government to clarify whether the trade agreements with Ukraine and Australia specify a timeframe in which changes to import restrictions must be made. Third, the Scottish Parliament has not been given the full 28-day scrutiny period to consider this notification. The Scottish Government claims that SI must be made quickly in order not to impact the UK's trade relations with Australia and Ukraine. The notification does not, however, make it clear how a delay of a few days to allow the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations would negatively impact on trade relations. I would like to put on record my strong concerns about the lack of time available for meaningful parliamentary scrutiny in relation to this instrument. On this occasion, the terms of the protocol have not been met. Does any member have any comments on the consent notification for this SI? Rachel Hamilton. My microphone is unmuted there. I haven't done this in a long time, convener. That is exactly echoing what you have just said, but I think that I missed the date that this will come in to effect. Was it the first of January as well? Emma, if she has the date of when it actually comes in to play, what would you just— The reason being is because, clearly, for the reasons that you have stated is that the committee will not have any opportunity to scrutinise the particular impact that it might have. I would just like some clarity on that, if I may, convener. We can check that. The notification was sent to the Scottish Parliament on 7 December with the intended laying date in Westminster on 16 December. The Scottish Parliament is there for being given less than 28 days, so the date of laying in Westminster will be on 16 December, which is tomorrow. However, we can clarify that with you, Rachel. Alasdair Allan. Is Alasdair still with us? We may have lost Alasdair. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead, Alasdair. I apologise for complicated reasons in my car today. I did not catch everything that you said there, but did you say that the SIs only laid tomorrow in the UK Parliament and the UK Government offered an explanation for the timing of that? The notification was sent to the Scottish Parliament on 7 December. We would be given less than 28 days, so we have not had that in time. We are not quite sure why there is an urgency. That is why we are asking for clarification about how an extension of a few days to allow us to have the full 28 days is considered. We just want to know what the impact would be. My question is really about the reasons for the UK Government's timing. Yes, that is right. That is what we want clarification over, is why the delay is going to negative impact the trade relations. We need to have that clarified. Okay. Okay. Any other members wish to comment? Karen? Fairly here. Can you hear me okay? Jim, could you put an hour in the chat? My apologies, Karen. I see Karen putting an hour in the chat box. Yeah, thanks. I was just going to ask what draft are we looking at here of the SIs? Okay. If you look at page 7, it gives you the details there. This is the SIs that has been laid. Yeah, this is the final draft, if you like. It is the final draft. Yeah, this is about approving the notification in paper 2. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Jim Fairlie. Yeah, thanks, Ken Vier. So, let me just clarify. We were asking the Scottish Government why we didn't have enough time to scrutinise the SIs, but it's in fact a UK Government issue, not a Scottish Government issue. Is that correct? That might be the case, but what the Scottish Government has to do is ask the Scottish Parliament for approval. We will write to the Scottish Government to ask why there was the delay in what we were given less than 28 days. Have you not just told Alistair that it is the UK Government that hasn't stated the full SIs in the first place? It's not the role of the committee to scrutinise the UK Government's position. It's for us to ask the Scottish Government why it's the case. Now, they may say it's because they didn't get it in time, and that's fine, but our position is to approve the Scottish Government's giving consent. Right, okay. So, we're asking the Scottish Government to clarify that the UK Government didn't actually have the SIs in front of them in time. Yes. Okay, that's fine. Thank you, Alistair. Thanks, Billie. Okay, any further comments? No? Okay, is the committee to ask Alistair? Hi, no, I just want to pick up on what's being said there. I mean, I understand the point that's being made about the process of an SIs. However, I would disagree with the idea that it's not this committee's role to ask any questions about timing of the UK Government, and I don't want to leave the impression hanging there that the UK Government's role in this is irrelevant. So, I think that it is entirely irrelevant if we're going to ask questions about timing of the Scottish Government, given what's just been said, that we do write to the UK Government and ask them the question. Well, I'll ask Edwin to come in as my understanding is that we need to write to the Scottish Government to clarify why there was the urgency, and they will be able to tell us, given that the instrument was sent to the Scottish Government. Is there no ban on the committee writing to the UK Government to ask questions? No, absolutely not, but it's the Scottish Government that lays the tool in front of us to ask us if we are content that they could give consent to the UK instrument. So, we will write to the Scottish Government to ask why there was urgency, because the Scottish Government could— I'm just proposing that we ask a question, and I'm not sure what the problem is with asking the question. Yeah, we certainly can. If it would help, we can also write to the UK Government the same question, but ultimately it is the Scottish Government that have laid this for us to give consent, for them to consent to the UK instrument. That's my understanding, but we can certainly write to the UK Government if that would help. Jim Fairlie and Rachel Hamilton. Yeah, thanks, Finlay. Just to be clear, the Scottish Government is laying an SI on the basis of—sorry. The Scottish Government is asking us to agree to an SI that has been laid by this committee, which should have come from the UK Government. The UK Government haven't given us the appropriate period of time, and from the letter that the convener that we got from the clerks this morning said that the UK Government has suddenly changed importation rules without any consultation from the Scottish Government. No, Jim, that's a different SI. You're talking about a different SI. That's a different SI. Right. Okay. Thank you very much for the clarity. I have to say that I echo Alistair's point. If the UK Government haven't got it in time, how is it the responsibility of the Scottish Government? Well, that's what we're seeking clarity on. The notification was sent to the Scottish Parliament on 7 December. That doesn't mean— How was that the final one? This is the SI that's in front of us. It was sent to the Scottish Parliament on 7 December, with the intent of it being laid in Westminster on 16 December. We can write to the Scottish Government and ask why the Parliament was only notified of this on 7 December. It's unclear to me at the moment when the Scottish Government got that SI from the UK Government. That's my understanding. Right. Okay, because I thought you said that they didn't get it in time to do the 22. Okay, we clearly need clarity. I think that Alistair's point stands that we should be writing to the UK Government as well. Yeah, I absolutely appreciate that. That's not a problem, but what's unclear at the moment is when the Scottish Government got the notification. What I'm trying to say is that the Scottish Parliament—that's us in the committee—only got the notification on 7 December, so we can ask for clarification on when the Scottish Government got the notification. Does that make it clearer? Yes, it does, but I still think that there is a responsibility to the UK Government, and I think that we need to be writing to the UK Government as well. Yeah, but it's unclear whether the UK Government were late in sending the notification, and that date I don't have. Okay. Rachel Hamilton. Thanks, convener. I think that this is proving why it's so much better to have a physical meeting rather than virtual. Anyway, on the point that we're making here, can I just ask about the point that's made on number 23, which says that the Scottish and the UK Government argue that it must come into force as soon as possible? If there's shared interest here, I'm right in saying that there's a shared objective here, there just seems to be some sort of other reason for a delay. My understanding is that we don't know why this protocol is urgent. We don't know why we haven't been given the full 28 days. I intend to write to the Scottish Government, asking why it's an urgent SI and why an extra few days, which would allow us to scrutinise this properly, hasn't been given. As I said, it's unclear when the Scottish Government received the policy proposal in the form of the instrument in time, and it's the Scottish Government that notified the Scottish Parliament late, so that's what we need to clarify. Again, yes, absolutely. In the letter, I will ask why it is urgent and what impact on trade relations our next few days would make. I can happily agree that it would be better if we were meeting offline rather than online, rather than me sitting in my car here. However, I have to say that there are good reasons why there are certain constraints on us in the moment. I think that it's worth not overlooking that. The other thing that I would say is that, yes, I think that this is a reasonable course of action, but I think that we should just be clear about what we're trying to find out here. I think that, presumably, what we're trying to find out is when the final version of the SI was made available to the Scottish Government, because we're not interested in when drafts were available. Yes, absolutely. I'm not aware, and it doesn't really affect this committee. The whole point is that we have not been given the 28 days as required by the SI protocol to scrutinise this, but the letter will ask why that is the case, and it will ask when the Scottish Government was notified of the SI. It may come back that they say that they got it late from the UK Government, and that's possibly what happened, or that there may be a reason for the Scottish Government didn't like it. I'm not giving a judgment. I don't know, but we'll certainly ask the questions as to why this is arisen. It's not the first time, and we don't want it to become a habit for me, if you like. Can I just ask Emma Clarke whether the questions that have been asked and my responses are in line with the papers that we don't know when the Scottish Government will receive the UK statutory instrument? Emma. Emma Clarke Thank you very much, convener. My understanding is that the Scottish Government was contacted at short notice, and that the notification was drafted at short notice. Officials contacted the clerks informally to give us warning that the notification would be received. As the notification states, the UK Government and the Scottish Government were agreed that the short timescale was required in order to not to negatively impact trade relations. The Convener I hope that that provides some clarity. As I said, one of the questions that we're going to ask is why, because it's not clear whether those trade deals specify a time frame, so we don't know what the pressure is on having to bring it in at such or such a short notice. Any further questions, comments? Is the committee content that the provisions set out in the notification should be included in the proposed UKSI, if you're not satisfied if you could type an N in the chat function? We're content. Finally, is that the committee content to delegate authority to me, sign off a letter to the Scottish Government in forming a decision today, and I do intend to set out strong concerns around the lack of available time for meaningful scrutiny and the breach of the protocol in my letter, and also copying the letter to the convener of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for our information. I will also highlight concerns relating to the withdrawn SI. Just so that you're speaking on behalf of all of us, can you just summarise what your concerns are about the withdrawn SI and why it's a concern that you think the committee has a whole shares? It was. The concerns were around the fact that we had it in front of us and it's been withdrawn at a very late stage and asked for the reasons for that. We did have a letter outlining some of the reasons and it will be laid in front of us, but once again, we are not going to get a chance to look at that because it needs to come in force into force on 1 January. I suppose that my point is that it's a fair point to draw attention to that less than ideal circumstance, but we have just had a letter this morning from the Scottish Government that gives reasons in its view why a Scottish SI is necessary, given the changes that have been made in the last few days to the UK SI at rapid pace by the UK Government. I suppose that I'm just really looking for some assurance that the tone of the letter that's written will reflect that. The reason for the letter is that, once again, only to suggest that the committee is concerned that we're going to have no opportunity to look at the proposed SI before it's laid on 1 January. That's fine if that's the tone, I'm happy with that. My point is made that we have acknowledged the fact that we have had correspondence, albeit just this morning from the Scottish Government, which sets out some of its reasons. Yes, I absolutely take that on board. That concludes our public business for today. We now move into private session on Microsoft Teams. Members will find the link in the calendar request for today's meeting.