Chamber and committees

Thank you. My final question is for Mr Johnson. You described how you must operate in the Brussels office in the post-Brexit landscape. Last week, as been mentioned, we spoke to David McAllister about the European Parliament. For very understandable and sound reasons, he was keen to say that the relationship between the European Parliament and our Parliament would have to be informal rather than formal. I take it that you are still operating in both informal and formal spheres?

This question is perhaps for John Webster, first. As everyone knows, there are different models of Scotland’s representation around the world—from the SDI offices to co-location with UK embassies, as you have described. Scotland House is a distinctive model that operates from its own premises and on its own terms. Could you say a bit more about some of the things that are distinctive about Scotland House? In particular, I know that efforts were made pre-pandemic to bring businesses into the building and for it to have an open door.

Good morning, Mr Hall, and welcome to the committee. You mentioned the issues that you have raised around the internal market act. Your written evidence says:

“NFU Scotland remains significantly concerned that the UK IMA 2020 could potentially override all Common Frameworks relating to agricultural support, environmental and animal welfare standards”.

On animal welfare standards and the production of meat, can you give any examples of how your concerns might be made manifest? What situations do you think might arise?

You have asked my next question—where does that leave the agriculture industry? I use the example of meat. In the scenario where meat was produced to different welfare standards in England and the internal market act obliged that that meat to be made available on the market in Scotland, how would that affect farmers who were endeavouring to use a different standard in Scotland? What would the reaction of the market be, particularly supermarkets, to that situation in Scotland?

You have also pointed to the fact that this model of legislating does not have any dispute resolution mechanism within it. Can you say a bit more about the consequences of that?

I suppose that my question is about the reason for the UK Government’s timing, then.

Just so that you are speaking on behalf of all of us, will you summarise what your concerns are about the withdrawn SI and why you think they are concerns that the committee as a whole shares?

It is fair to draw attention to what is a less than ideal circumstance, but I point out that we have received a letter this morning from the Scottish Government that gives reasons for its view that a Scottish SI is necessary, given the changes that the UK Government has made to the UK SI at rapid pace over the past few days. I am looking for some assurance that the tone of the letter that is written will reflect that.

That is fine. If that is the tone, I am happy with that. However, I have made the point that we should acknowledge that we have had correspondence, albeit just this morning, from the Scottish Government, setting out some of the reasons for the situation.

I am just proposing that we ask the question. I am not sure what the problem is with asking the question.