Thank you for the question. I will make some remarks and then, if my officials feel that I have failed to address the question entirely, I will ask them to chip in.
It is important to know that the wording of sections 2 and 6 constrains ministerial powers quite deliberately. Sections 2(2) and 6(2) both state:
“The Scottish Ministers may only make modifications under subsection (1) that they consider would simplify or improve the operation of the provisions of the legislation.”
There is a potential difference, convener, in the meaning of the provision. Had the provision said that ministers may “simplify or improve the legislation”, that would have been a fairly broad power.
I contend that the wording, which is quite deliberate, constrains the power so that it applies only to those circumstances where that simplification or improvement will improve the operation of the provisions of the legislation. It is important to reflect, as I invite the committee to do, that the power is essentially an adjective provision, rather than a substantive power; it allows us to address and improve the process.
The common agricultural policy is fiendishly complicated and the administration of it is even more so. We know that farmers and crofters suffered delays to payments two years ago. I hope that that problem has now been substantially fixed. Were we to have to get powers under primary legislation to deal with matters to do with the operation of the processes, we would run the serious risk of not being able to pay out to farmers and crofters. That is why it is essential that we continue to have the powers provided in the bill.
Your specific question, convener, was about a time limit. I do not believe that a time limit is appropriate—indeed quite the opposite. It is essential that we do not put ourselves in the position that ministers have to seek to make primary legislation. We know how congested the schedule for primary legislation is and, in my view, that would not be the appropriate or necessary course of action.
Any suggestion that the power should be time limited came from the fact that our document, “Stability and Simplicity: proposals for a rural funding transition period”, which was published in June 2017, envisaged that Brexit would be at a much more advanced stage by this time. It is not, of course, and the uncertainties regarding trade and tariffs in particular, remain. Were tariffs to be imposed, we might well have to make very rapid changes to the nature of subsidies to compensate for additional taxes, which could decimate, for example, the sheep sector. Equally, were trade measures not to prevent a flood of cheap imports of beef, we might have to act very quickly to support coupling payments by increasing them. Were we to have to go back to Parliament to make primary legislation in order to get powers to do that, our hands would be totally tied.
If we have given you the impression that it would be appropriate for the powers to reach an end at some point, it is perhaps a fault on our part, which I accept. I do not think that it would be sensible or prudent to introduce a time limit on the powers at all.
Finally, we are always subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Last week, I was before the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for two and a half hours. That is quite a session of being accountable, although I am not complaining about that. Two and a half hours in front of a committee is accountability, is it not? It is right that Parliament is always able to hold me to account—and has done so for hundreds of hours—in both committee and plenary.
I wanted to make it absolutely clear that, from a policy point of view, any move to constrain powers may have unintended consequences and, from the point of view of farmers and crofters, potentially very deleterious consequences indeed.
I do not know whether officials want to add anything of a technical nature. Twenty years ago, I was a member of the precursor to this committee, the Subordinate Legislation Committee, and I know that the committee is concerned with process and not substance. I do not know whether my officials think that I have answered all the points.