Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I should say that I am quite new to the committee, and I am not that keen on being lumped in if statements are made along the lines of, “The committee believes this,” when I have not had a chance to take evidence and make up my mind in relation to the matter. I find the questioning bizarre. I will make a series of observations, and then perhaps you can tell me if any of them are wrong, cabinet secretary.

From the public’s point of view, the situation will be very hard to understand, unless you are an adherent of the idea of the multiverse, where there is an infinite number of universes that you should plan contingencies for. It might make sense in that regard. It seems that you are doing a straightforward thing of ensuring that appointments to a public body—the principle of which was agreed at stage 1 of the Education (Scotland) Bill, I think—are done in an ethical way and are overseen by the relevant regulatory bodies, which is very important in public appointments. That is not something that most people would object to; they will probably be surprised at some of the questioning around it.

The Government has been accused of having an agenda and a direction. I would certainly hope that the Government has an agenda and a direction. Perhaps it is because there are other agendas that we are hearing some of the questioning. What is being done seems to be eminently sensible and not unusual.

On the idea that something might happen at stage 2, I would say that this committee does not make legislation; it is part of the legislative process. It is the Parliament that decides on these things. Of course the Government will have to listen to that.

It seems to be eminently sensible to make provisions now so that you do not lose time. I do not know why anybody would not want to support the proposal; it is very odd to me. The convener seems to be suggesting that the committee might not want to support it, but I would certainly want to support it. I am happy to—

I know you interrupt people all the time, convener.

Are we not allowed to make statements when we ask questions?

What statement have I made that is factually incorrect?

I never said that you instructed the committee. I never said that.

Thank you for that. This raises the question of why members in this Parliament would give away the opportunity to legislate in this area and would have others legislate on their behalf.

I am conscious, Mr Hall, that there are a number of things in your organisation’s written statement that coincide with what was said by a witness on the previous panel. For example, you said:

“It is the clear view of NFU Scotland that the principles embedded in the UK Internal Market Act (IMA) 2020 pose a significant threat to the development of Common Frameworks and to devolved policy.”

You also said that the internal market act

“appears to limit the devolved administrations’ ability to act if any standards were lowered and give the UK Government a final say in areas of devolved policy.”

We were told in 2014 that we were going to be the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world and that the Sewel convention was going to be enshrined in law. Within a couple of years, the UK Government said that the Sewel convention was merely a “self-denying ordinance” and that it could choose whether or not to use it.

Given that change, and that UKIMA has reversed-engineered devolution—that term has been used—as well as the fact that the current UK Government does not want to repeal it, is the exercise that we are involved in likely to effect the changes that you want to see? Given the massive changes in the devolved nature of the Parliament, should there be something bigger and wider than a very limited review of UKIMA to address your concerns? In 2015, we had the Smith commission. In my view, the public should be involved in deciding on the Parliament’s powers.

Thank you.

Does anyone want to add to that point?

I have a question for Mr Hall first and then one for both witnesses. Mr Austin mentioned the limited examples of how people have chosen to do things differently. I wonder whether, because such choices—the DRS or the ban on glue traps—have been slapped down and people have been told, imperiously, that they will not do it, there is a feeling that there is no point in bothering to innovate or trying to do something different in future.

However, in the example of gene editing that you mentioned, Mr Hall, you rightly pointed out the asymmetry of the situation: the UK Government can just make the decision for England and does not have to answer to anybody but everyone else has to answer to the UK Government. I have no doubt that, had it been the other way round—had Scotland unilaterally chosen to go for gene editing and England had not—this outcome would not have happened. That is just the way that things go.

You made a comment in your opening statement that the system was designed to provide no competitive advantage or disadvantage. If that is the case, it is not really a market at all, is it? That is like going to a market where everyone is selling the same goods for the same price. Surely a market, by definition, has competition and elements to it that are more competitive and less competitive. Otherwise, it is not really a market.

I want to come in on that last point. I know that it is difficult, and I understand that you do not want to talk up or to give more oxygen to a potential challenge—maybe I am wrong, but that is my impression—but is it not at least hypothetically possible that, in this so-called internal market, one area might object to what it sees as greater Government support being given to another area? It is a viable concern that the current support for Scottish farmers—or, indeed, the support for farmers in any part of the UK in the same situation—could be undermined on that basis.