Chamber and committees

Are there any other views on that question?

Professor McHarg is looking to come in.

There are many aspects to the issue. If you are going to have a framework like this, you want to be able to cope regardless of whether there is a good or bad relationship between the Governments. You want to be able to cope with changes of Governments and changes of ideology. You want to be able to cope with an emergency situation. You want to be able to cope with the emergence of new policy areas that test the boundary between devolved and reserved areas. I find it difficult to see how a framework will be able to withstand all those pressures and those that we cannot predict.

Do other witnesses want to comment on the practical question, particularly around whether things such as the exclusions list is more likely to change? If that is where we are likely to see willingness to move, how should we implement such changes?

You differ constructively, I hope.

And to a deregulatory pressure as well.

I will quote NFU Scotland’s written evidence, but my question is for both of you. NFUS seems to have hit on the nub of the tension in paragraph 2:

“NFU Scotland stresses the need for agricultural support policies to diverge where necessary to reflect different needs and objectives. However, the free movement of goods and services and the regulations ... must be aligned so there is no competitive (cost) advantage or disadvantage”.

People might emphasise one or the other of those objectives, but there is a tension between them and there always will be a tension between them. The principle that we should be aiming for is not to be absolute about either but to understand that tension and, as you said, hear from the stakeholders who are affected by whatever divergence might emerge and whatever consequences might arise. A clear-eyed decision should be made in a democratically accountable manner about how to manage that tension and, within devolved policy areas, the default should be that that decision is made in the devolved Administration or jurisdiction.

First, do you agree that that tension will always continue to emerge in issues that we know about and in new ones that we have not encountered yet? Secondly, as well as those two priorities and objectives, is there an additional one? I think that you have both touched on it, using different language. I think that Lloyd Austin used the phrase “race to the top”, and Jonnie Hall talked about protecting standards or something of that nature. If, for example, a future trade agreement opened the Scottish and UK market to products that undercut your members in terms of environmental protection, animal welfare and a whole host of other areas that we might anticipate, your members—at least those whose principal market is domestic rather than international—would be deeply concerned. The direction of travel of the regulatory landscape is an additional objective that we need to keep in mind, beyond divergence for innovation’s sake or for meeting local needs, or for the protection of the market itself. I wonder whether you could reflect on those issues.

The Government was considering the consultation a year ago, and the real concern is that it has been spending that time watering it down. That is my fear and the fear of the green-heat industry.

The reality is that Scotland is already well behind many other European countries on the issue. France and Germany have been accelerating their action, and Scandinavian countries are decades ahead of us. The only way to catch up and to give Scottish households the benefit of affordable and reliable heat, and to cut the pollution that is destroying our environment, is for the Government to act decisively and to show leadership. However, just as the Government has slowed down on other green measures by hiking rail fares and watering down rent controls, progress on clean heat has been stalled.

Will the First Minister commit to getting the overdue proposed legislation published this month, so that we get the clarity and leadership that have been lacking?

Happy news is a rare and precious thing in these times, so I echo the congratulations to the First Minister and his family on their new arrival.

In April, energy bills are set to rise for the third time in less than a year, and people across Scotland are worried about those bills. At the same time, energy companies are raking in vast profits at the expense of people and the planet. Our energy markets are broken. We could both say what we think the United Kingdom Government should do to fix those markets, but the Scottish Government has also promised action that has not been taken.

My most recent question to the First Minister was nearly three months ago. I asked him about his promise of a new law to end our reliance on gas for home heating—law that is vital to tackling the climate emergency and cutting people’s bills. The proposed law was, without explanation, already overdue back in December. Here we are in March, but there is still no legislation and no explanation.

If we believe in the principle of religious freedom, surely it is clear that any pupil who is mature enough to decide that they are not a believer should not be required to go through a pretence of religious observance. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that, in analysing the consultation responses, she will give due regard to the views of young people who want to make what is a perfectly reasonable choice for themselves?

Where is it?