Chamber and committees

That is an absolutely critical point, which we continually re-emphasise to the UK Government. We highlight the parliamentary processes that we have in place and continually make the point that it is hugely important to recognise those processes to enable the scrutiny that you need to undertake. I can only apologise for the late notification that you get, particularly with some pieces of secondary legislation. Again, some of those issues are outwith our control. We try to keep the committee up to date and informed as much as we can. However, there are occasions on which we get information at the last minute or when decisions are taken that completely change initial policies.

There was an instance of that just before Christmas, with the official controls regulation and some of the changes that are proposed on that. Discussions took place at a meeting that was attended by the devolved Administrations, only for a huge policy shift to then become apparent, which we were asked at very short notice to sign up to and agree to. The committee will be aware of that, because you had the various notices from me that then had to be revoked and changed.

That is just the environment that we are working in. However, we take every opportunity to remind the UK Government of the essential parliamentary scrutiny processes. Some of that is outwith our control. We genuinely try to give the committee information as and when we receive it to ensure that we allow as much time as possible for scrutiny. However, that is not always within our remit.

No, and that has been part of the problem. We asked for the consultation responses to be shared with us but we were told that they could not be, for reasons of data protection. We followed up by asking for anonymised responses so that we could understand the rationale for people asking for agriculture to be included. After the meeting we had on Monday, we were told that that information will be shared with us, but, as yet, we have not received it.

I will bring Jesus Gallego in on that point.

With regard to the common frameworks, I know that there are six areas that relate to the committee’s remit. Those frameworks should be published at some point towards the end of the month, and it will then be up to the committee to scrutinise them.

I am sorry, but I have forgotten the last part of your question.

I do not know whether there are particular issues in that regard. Perhaps my officials have further information on food regulation.

That is one area on which I would be happy to follow up with the committee after the meeting.

Some of those issues are on-going in the EU, so we continue to monitor them. As members of the EU, we had the potential to set our own policies, and we had the ability to diverge, which did not cause any particular issues. For example, we had specific schemes in Scotland that did not exist elsewhere in the UK. It is those specific schemes, which address the specific constraints and types of land that we have in Scotland, that are now very much under threat as a result of both the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill. There is no getting away from the issues that we face in that regard.

I come back to the common frameworks process. That process helps us to manage divergence, because it is only fair, given that the powers and the responsibility rest with the devolved Administrations, that it is up to those Administrations, which are elected in those countries, to take the policy decisions that work best for the populations that they represent. It is up to me to deliver on the commitments that we have set out in our manifesto and on what we have set out in the programme for government. All that we want is the ability to carry out that work.

As I highlighted in a previous response, agricultural policy is taking a different road in England from the route that we have set out to take in Scotland. We have made different commitments, and that is where the fear of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill comes in, because those pieces of legislation could well constrain our policy choices in the future.

One of those choices is to maintain direct payments, which the UK Government has said it will phase out. Again, the Subsidy Control Bill could have a serious impact on our ability to do that, or to offer payments through the less favoured area support scheme or some of the coupled support schemes that do not exist elsewhere or in which there might be policy divergence in the future.

It is about those pieces of legislation together. Ultimately, we are finding that it is huge step backwards from being in the EU, where we had those powers and the freedom to exercise those powers in developing our own policy. The 2020 act and the Subsidy Control Bill remove those powers and put them in the hands of UK ministers, which—as I said in previous responses—undermines the common frameworks process. It was designed to resolve, or to try and work through, some of the policy divergence that we will have in some areas, because it is every devolved Government’s right to set the polices that are right for the people who elect it to that position and who deliver on the commitments that it has set out. In essence, the 2020 act and the Subsidy Control Bill remove our ability to do that, because the ultimate end decision rests with the UK Government. That completely undermines the powers that we have in those devolved areas that are of critical importance for devolved Administrations, and it means that the UK Government can overrule us in devolved areas of policy.

Fisheries is a more complex area in relation to the Subsidy Control Bill. I will bring in Caro Cowan on that point.