Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is absolutely right and applies across a range of issues, and it goes back to the points that I made earlier. The bank will have to decide whether things may or may not be done under the subsidy control regime, and if the guidance is not clear, at the first level, that might stop the bank doing things that it might otherwise have done, because of those concerns. As you said, decisions on devolved issues would be made at the UK level, but devolved institutions should be making the decisions based on the specific economic environment in Scotland.

At all levels, it would be preferable and desirable, from a democratic point of view and from an economic and practical point of view, for Scotland to make such decisions and for the Scottish ministers to have powers equivalent to those of the secretary of state.

That is a good question and we have raised it. The cabinet secretary, Mairi Gougeon, had extensive discussions with Paul Scully on this last week. The position that you outlined is correct. Agriculture is normally excluded from subsidy control regimes. It has separate treatment by the World Trade Organization and the EU, through a separate process.

Secondly, agriculture is fully devolved. It is a prime example of an area where we are seeing encroachment of UK Government powers into devolved areas.

Thirdly, of course, Scotland has specific circumstances. That goes back to the point that was made earlier about the fact that the characteristics of the sector in Scotland are different to those in much of the rest of the UK, which means that the ability to have different regimes for subsidies in agriculture within Scotland in practical terms may well evolve over time. Clearly, given that it is a devolved area, we want Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament to be able to make decisions on the most appropriate subsidy. Control regimes in wider WTO and trade agreement limitations help us to do that and not to be running the risk of falling foul of concerns raised south of the border about what we are doing. I believe that the Welsh Government is aligned with our position on that.

Our ask is that devolved ministers would have equivalent powers to the secretary of state in that regard.

We have made representations that there should be a review of the timelines in the bill. I mentioned in my opening remarks that interested parties do not have long enough to appeal. We think that the one-month period in which to give notice of an appeal could be extended to allow those parties to raise any issues. In terms of transparency, that has been our commentary on the bill.

Transparency will depend on how good the database is. Awards will be logged on to the database and the information will be available for people to access and look at. However, much will depend on how effectively the database operates—I know that there have been teething problems with the database that has been used for the subsidy control regime. Providing that the database works as it should, that information will be available for people to interrogate.

Good morning. It is great to be here.

The two Scottish statutory instruments that you are considering today are routine. They concern the application of the public sector equality duty and of the Scotland-specific equality duties to our newest enterprise agency, South of Scotland Enterprise. South of Scotland Enterprise was established in April last year; the SSIs will bring it into line with Scottish Enterprise, Highland and Islands Enterprise and a large number of other non-departmental public bodies.

The Equality Act 2010 (Specification of Public Authorities) (Scotland) Order 2021 will add South of Scotland Enterprise to the list of public authorities that are required to comply with the public sector equality duty. That duty requires public authorities, when exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not.

The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 will apply the Scotland-specific equality duties to South of Scotland Enterprise by adding it to the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012. That will require South of Scotland Enterprise to, for example, publish equality outcomes and report on progress towards achieving those outcomes; report on mainstreaming equality; and publish information on the gender pay gap and equal pay. I recognise the importance of ensuring that South of Scotland Enterprise exercises its functions with regard to the equality duties, and I consider the SSIs to be the best approach to achieving that.

I hope that that provides a useful overview to the committee. I am happy to answer questions.

That is a good question. The provision cannot be put in primary legislation; it needs to be in an SSI, in a separate process.

Your question about the time gap is very valid. Clearly, a lot of this has happened during Covid time, when the focus was elsewhere. It is important that we correct that now. When it comes to concerns about the implications of that, I assure you that South of Scotland Enterprise has, in any event, complied in all regards with the requirements, and was set up on that basis. The board and management are very clear about the requirements in the SSIs, which have been baked into their operation right from the start. We have not lost any time in that regard. This is, in effect, a tidying-up exercise, to bring the body into line with the legislation that applies to other enterprise agencies.

They will speak for themselves, but I understand that their concerns are largely about the potential downgrading of standards in pursuit of international trade deals—clearly, that is something to be concerned about—and the UK Government being in a position to make changes that the regulators are not comfortable with.

The 2020 act gives the UK Government the ability to impinge on devolved areas, which is something that we are deeply unhappy about. As we know, power devolved is power retained, so the UK Government can effectively do as it wishes in that regard. The internal market legislation allows the UK Government to do that, but that does not mean that that is a wise thing to do, or that it is in the interests of Scotland for it to do so.

Yes, I think so. From our perspective, the main issue is the impingement on devolved responsibilities. Issues have been raised by regulators, who also have concerns, but the main issue for us is the devolved aspects. We recognise the asks from the regulators and we are supportive of many of them. We hope that the UK Government will also move forward on those asks, with appropriate amendments.