Seòmar agus comataidhean

Donald Cameron rightly said that devolved power is writ pretty wide. My question is about the section 35 powers. Are they so broadly phrased as to be writ pretty wide as well? Do you have any view about how the “governor general clause”, as it was called at the time, is phrased and about what latitude it gives to ministers in the UK and what latitude it might give to hypothetical ministers who might see themselves in a governor general-type role? What do you feel about the phrasing of that section of the Scotland Act 1998? Do you feel that it is general in the way that it is phrased?

You touched on the question that I was going to ask, Professor McHarg. I am genuinely not sure that I understand how an upper house—the House of Lords—revised or otherwise, will find itself in a less contentious position, given that 90 per cent of its members will not be from Scotland or, on a good day, perhaps 80 per cent. I am not sure that I understand how the decision as to whether Scotland’s consent to something is required would be less contentious because the other 80 per cent or 90 per cent included people from English local authorities or regional authorities. I just do not understand how that would be a less contentious or difficult political situation.

Can I ask about the opportunities for achieving mainstreaming? We often use that word but rarely define it. What are the opportunities for achieving the mainstreaming of the best practice that we can use in terms of climate change mitigation and farming, and how should we incorporate that in legislation?

Obviously, the bill’s aims and the NFUS’s views on those aims will sit in a wider context. I am keen to understand how you think the bill will fit into that context.

You have previously told the Parliament that you feel that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020

“drives a coach and horses through the principles of common frameworks and almost renders them redundant.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 December 2021; c 4.]

Is that still your view? If so, what does that say about the context that the bill is going to sit in and how that will affect its aims?

Some of the issues in my questions have been touched on, but what policy is needed to support biodiversity? You said that the policy will depend on the funding envelope that is available. You alluded to it earlier, but what is your union doing to lobby the UK Government on the uncertainty about funding?

Before I leave that, I have just a final point. That jam is spread quite thinly when it comes to forms of agriculture that are already ticking a lot of boxes when it comes to sustainable agriculture and sustaining biodiversity, if you look at what the average crofter or in some cases upland farmer receives. If we are trying to mainstream that good practice, do you think that the kind of payments that are on offer at the moment are getting the balance right?

One of the many other strains that came to the fore in our evidence last week was the issue of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Philip Rycroft, who is a former permanent secretary at the Department for Exiting the European Union, said of that bill:

“Frankly, words almost fail me in respect of the bill. It is seeking to do the impossible.”

He said that it is

“an extraordinary piece of legislation, and one in which I see very little benefit.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 March 2023; c 15.]

Can you comment on how you feel going forward in a world with a REUL bill where the relationship has changed? What can be done to overcome some of the problems that some witnesses have identified?

It is interesting to hear your views. Professor Denham, I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I think that you talked about how adjustment to the mechanisms for communications between the various Governments may not be enough to solve some of the problems.

Last week, we heard from former civil servants, who commented on some of the causes of tension at the moment. We heard from Professor Jim Gallagher, who is a former director general for devolution at the Cabinet Office. He told us that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was

“a breach of the Sewel convention”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 9 March 2023; c 5.]

Does any of you have a view on whether we should worry about that or on whether the Sewel convention is still real and functioning?

I will certainly do my best, convener.

I agree that we have heard a lot about the problems, and I am keen to hear about whether there are existing solutions that we can build on to an extent. As I am prone to do, I will mention crofting. There are mown grassland schemes and other forms of less intensive agriculture that are helpful to species such as ground nesting birds. Which of those schemes can we build on in future? Professor Thompson mentioned the corn bunting; I am thinking of corncrakes. I represent the Western Isles, so I can recognise what you are saying. However, my origins are in the Borders and my father could remember being kept awake at night routinely by corncrakes when he lived on a farm in Berwickshire. There have been huge changes. What forms of agriculture or agricultural support should we be building on?

I am interested in your response to the CivTech challenges. Challenge 8.2 is:

“How can technology help drive effective resource management for a multiskilled workforce in a constantly changing environment?”

That seems to relate to the rural payments and inspections division. I ask you to respond to that or to how the CivTech challenges more generally might be applied when developing future agriculture policy.