Chamber and committees

That leads on to my last question, which is about one of the provisions in that bill: the establishment of a sustainable development commissioner. You may be aware that there are active conversations in the Parliament about the value of commissioners, about where they sit in relation to committees and about the expense of commissioners and of running commissions. Why is a sustainable development commissioner a critical part of that bill? Can a better case be made for having a commissioner? If we are to continue with commissioners, why should we have a sustainable development commissioner?

You are very welcome. I thank both of you very much.

I am very conscious of time, so I ask for succinct answers that do not repeat what has been said.

I am sure that you could. Mr Brown, I am conscious of time, so if you could make it a quick question, and if we could have succinct answers, that would be helpful.

I will open with a question about the case studies. You say that there is

“a clear view, particularly among the larger businesses ... that the Market Access Principles are unlikely to be used as the preferred approach to address regulatory differences.

Could you expand on that and say what the implications of that will be for the Internal Market Act 2020?

I am very sorry that we have been so squeezed for time today, but that concludes the session. Thank you very much for your written communication to us and for coming along this morning.

As members have no further questions, I will finish with one. I am sorry to return to the DRS, but I guess that it is the most controversial example that we have had. I appreciate that you were not involved in that.

Mr Macbeth, you said that part of the issue was that nations were going at different speeds in that regard. However, we are politicians in devolved legislatures, which should have competence in certain areas. I am trying to understand what would have happened if you had been involved.

If the Scottish Government had asked for advice, would you have looked purely at its proposals, or would you have looked at the wider context in the rest of the UK? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but, in that example, it seems from what you have said that the only advice that you would be able to provide would be cautionary and that, until the four nations have an idea of what they will do, it is a big risk for policy makers and business to go ahead when, in effect, we do not have an English devolved settlement but an English trump card, in the sense that that market will always trump what is happening in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.

Our second agenda item is to take evidence from the Office for the Internal Market on its annual report. We are joined by Murdoch MacLennan, chair, and James Macbeth, director, both from the Office for the Internal Market. I give a warm welcome to you both. I invite Mr MacLennan to make an opening statement.

Welcome back to the meeting. We will continue to take evidence for the inquiry into the Scottish Government’s national outcomes and indicators relating to international policy. We are joined by Louise Davies, head of policy and communications at Scotland’s International Development Alliance; Lewis Ryder-Jones, advocacy adviser at Oxfam Scotland; and Dr Graham Long, senior lecturer at Newcastle University. I thank you for proactively approaching the committee about your work in this area.

In response to the Scottish Government’s public consultation, you called for measurement of more relevant indicators and better alignment with the United Nations sustainable development goals. What is your assessment of the document that has been laid before the Parliament for consultation? Have you had any role in the development of the new international indicators? I will start with Ms Davies.

Good morning, and a warm welcome to the 12th meeting in 2024 of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. We have apologies from Neil Bibby, and we welcome committee substitutes Foysol Choudhury and Kevin Stewart to the committee. We have also received apologies from Meghan Gallacher.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to take agenda item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.