Agenda item 2 is an evidence-taking session with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, for which we have scheduled 90 minutes. I welcome to the meeting the cabinet secretary, Mairi Gougeon, and her Scottish Government officials: George Burgess, director of agriculture and rural economy, and Annabel Turpie, director of Marine Scotland.
We will kick off with questions on the proposed agriculture bill. First, cabinet secretary, can you give us an update on where exactly we are with that? When can we expect the bill to be introduced?
As the committee will be aware, our consultation on proposals for a future agriculture bill closed last December. We have been analysing the consultation results, and we will be in a position to publish the response to the consultation shortly. As I have previously outlined, we have a commitment to introducing an agriculture bill to the Parliament this year, and we are still on track to deliver that.
Thank you. I call Alasdair Allan.
I was going to ask about the timetable for amendments to the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020, which is not to be confused with the rural bill. Given the ping-pong that is going on with legislation at Westminster just now, I wonder whether you can explain the two pieces of legislation, particularly the agriculture bill and its relevance.
Are you asking about the transitional amendments that we need for the current schemes?
Yes.
As I said in my initial response, we will introduce the agriculture bill this year. Earlier this year, we published our route map for reform, in which we are looking to introduce conditions in 2025 and then to phase the transition to the new framework over the years from 2025 onwards. We therefore need to introduce legislation to extend the provisions in the 2020 act. I cannot give a definitive timescale for that at the moment, but we need that transitionary piece of legislation to allow us to continue with the various schemes that we have at the moment so that we can ultimately implement the route map that we have set out. I will, of course, keep the committee informed as we look to introduce that.
On the agriculture bill, it would be helpful to get a clear indication of what “this year” means, given the tight timescales that we will be working to to get a new system in place. Can you be any clearer on what “this year” means?
I have said that we will publish the bill this year. I hope that you appreciate that, under the ministerial code, it is not possible for me to give a definitive date until it has all been agreed by Cabinet and discussed with the Parliament. I cannot give a definitive date for the introduction of the bill, but we intend to do that as soon as we can.
Okay. Thank you.
We have heard some in the farming sector calling for 80 per cent of the funding to be base payments. What is your position on that? Can you give us some examples of what conditionality might be applied to payments in pillar 1?
Our route map sets out information about when we are looking to publish information on conditionality, which we hope to be in a position to do very soon. It also sets out some of the areas in which we could apply conditionality in the basic payment scheme, whether that be on greening, the good agricultural and environmental conditions requirements, cross-compliance or potentially elements of a whole-farm plan. That was all listed in the information that we published. We also mentioned potential conditions for voluntary coupled support. We will announce the detail around what we published in the route map shortly.
I will go back to your question relating to NFU Scotland’s calls and the budget splits. The discussions are on-going. I know that that is the NFUS’s position, but other bodies have different views on that. We have committed to a policy of co-development in relation to how we develop our agriculture policy, so we will continue to have those discussions with the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, the NFUS and other stakeholders before setting out a position.
Okay. Is it likely that conditionality in some of the examples that you have given will be in the proposed bill, or will it be introduced after the proposed bill has been passed?
That conditionality will not be in the bill. As I outlined in my response to Alasdair Allan, that is where we need the transitional provision, using the powers within the current act, to allow for conditionality and continuity so that we can deliver what we set out in the route map.
Given how important conditionality might be, MSPs could be asked to vote on an agriculture bill when we do not know how the payments will be made and how much will be paid. We will be voting blind because conditionality on the bulk of the payments, which is such an important part of the bill, will not be decided until after the bill has been passed.
There will be an opportunity for scrutiny as the bill goes through. We need a piece of framework legislation, which is what we will introduce, to give us an adaptive framework for the future. That is what we set out in our proposals, and we will introduce that as part of the bill.
We have been working through our consultation responses so I cannot say definitively what will be in the bill at the moment, but the aim is for the secondary legislation to contain that detail.
I understand the calls for clarity, more detail and more information. We set out in the route map when that information will become available. There will, of course, be the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny as part of the process.
I have a couple of questions about the thinking around the payments. One is about supporting farmers who are already growing or want to grow more fruit and vegetables or plant protein. As you know, horticulture uses less land and supports many more livelihoods in rural areas. I am interested in hearing what your thinking is about supporting more people to grow food in Scotland.
That is what we have set out in our vision. I hope that, during the debates that we have had in the Parliament in the past few weeks, we have emphasised the importance of producing our own food. Our vision for agriculture sets out that we want to produce more and meet our food needs more sustainably.
I am specifically asking about horticulture. What are your thoughts on that?
09:15
Horticulture is a vital sector to Scotland in respect of the fruit and vegetables that we produce. We know that a number of issues affect the sector at the moment, but we want and encourage people to become involved in horticulture.
We also have various schemes. There are various projects, including a few in my constituency, that look at community-supported agriculture, and we have supported various schemes through those that are really important, because all of that is about strengthening and shortening our local supply chains. That, of course, also meets the objectives that we want to set out in the good food nation plans that we will produce.
I have a follow-on question, which is about less favoured areas. I get contacted by crofters who are concerned about inflation having an impact in less favoured areas, where they farm sheep and cattle. One opportunity that we have with a change in policy is in the diversification of what they can do. I am interested in hearing whether you can confirm that farmers in less favoured areas will be supported to access funding for projects such as the forestry grant scheme so that they can diversify.
Yes. In addition, if improvements can be made to the grant schemes that we currently have, we want to make those at the same time. The committee will probably be aware that we have had a consultation, which closed within the past couple of weeks, about improvements to the forestry grant scheme—about what we can do to remove some of the barriers that people face in accessing that scheme and trying to overcome those, because we want the integration of more trees on farms. We have an integrating trees network to which we like to direct people, to show exactly how that can be done. Such opportunities are really important.
I emphasise that I recognise the importance of the less favoured area support that we currently provide. That is why we have committed to maintaining the levels of payment as they are at the moment. We will continue our work on that, as we set out in our route map, as we look to build the future framework.
I will make a brief supplementary point.
An important part of the agriculture bill consultation was about making sure that tenants and crofters are not barred from participation in schemes because of the nature of their tenure, whether those are environmental schemes or other forms of diversification. Certainly, we support that.
The past month has been agritourism month, and quite a number of MSPs will have seen good examples in their own areas of a form of diversification that brings in significant income for holdings.
Thanks for confirming that.
There are two brief supplementary questions, from Jim Fairlie and Rachael Hamilton.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to go back a wee stage to how conditionality will be implemented, which the convener talked about. For folk who may not be as au fait with how the system works, framework bills and legislation, if something is set out on the face of a framework bill, that will become an act. However, there might be scope later to bring in stuff to help to achieve the objectives. Is that why the details and the conditionality have to wait until later? Does that make sense?
We would have the requirements for tier 2 in the new legislation. The measures to be included in that would be set out in secondary legislation. Ultimately, that allows for flexibility in the future so that we do not have to go back and amend primary legislation every time. That also means that we can adapt, add to or change those measures if there are innovations in agriculture, for example. That provides us with the flexibility and the adaptive framework that we will need for the future, so that we have more flexibility than we have through the current schemes.
So, if we put everything right at the start, it would be fixed, and primary legislation would have to be amended in order to change anything as things developed.
Yes.
That is the clarification that I was looking for. Thank you.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. Clearly, there is a call to maintain direct payments in tiers 1 and 2. The arguments are made on the basis that, currently, farmers are looking at efficiencies, improving the environment and all the rest of it. Removing those payments without clarity would mean that they could not plan for the future. We know that the livestock industry is contracting and that that genetic bank of high-quality livestock will never be able to be replaced. What impact study has been done on what you have said about pushing that down the line so that we look at it beyond primary legislation?
We are not pushing that down the line. In the route map that I published in February, I set out a very clear timescale for introducing changes and making information about those changes available to enable people to plan. The route map sets out a very clear timetable to try to give people comfort with regard to information.
However, I should say that we will not be removing any payment without there being clarity. As I have said before in the chamber—and I am keen to make the commitment again and to be clear about this—we are not going to see any cliff edges in support, with people one day accessing schemes that are gone the next. I absolutely appreciate the importance of the issue, of people’s ability to plan their future and their business, and of the need for longer-term clarity and security. Indeed, that is why we have committed to maintaining direct payments. We recognise how important that support is to our food production and in enabling our farmers and crofters to continue to undertake the good work that they are already doing. Again, our route map sets out a clear timetable to show when more of that information will be available.
Perhaps I can give you an example of individuals’ concerns. Yesterday, I spoke to a group from the islands—we know how important livestock farming and crofting are there, particularly in the less favoured areas. They are hearing suggestions that, instead of the livestock farming that is so important to their livelihoods being considered, trees are going to be planted in places such as Westray, where they cannot grow. The Government therefore needs to be very clear in its communications about the tiers and the sustainability of the future for farmers and crofters.
I do not know where those suggestions have come from, but I am more than happy to follow the matter up with you and to hear those concerns.
As I said in last week’s debate, I absolutely recognise the importance of livestock farming to our island communities. In some parts of the country, people do not have as many opportunities to look at other measures that they could take or other types of farming that they could undertake. There will always be a place for livestock farming in Scotland, because we do it well here, and that will continue into the future. Again, I am more than happy to follow up those issues.
I also want to ensure that our communication is clear. It is frustrating to hear the sort of example that you have highlighted. I want the messages that we send out to reach everyone. However, if you are hearing those things, that must not be the case. I want to hear any suggestions that people might have for improving our communications, because we are looking to do that as much as we can.
We have many examples that we could highlight. There are the different networks—our agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network, our integrating trees network and so on—in which so much good practice is being undertaken, and there is also the Farm Advisory Service. We are looking to engage with as many people as possible, and that is what we have tried to do by providing more clarity and information through the route map. I would direct people to look at that and the list of measures that we have published for an indication of what things might look like in the future. We are also actively seeking feedback, because we want to hear how those measures might work.
I call Jim Fairlie.
Earlier in the year, cabinet secretary, you gave us information about the national test programme. Will you update us on where you are with that?
Yes, I am more than happy to do so. With regard to track 1 of the national test programme, I think that the last time that I appeared before the committee, we were looking at fairly low figures for the carbon audits and soil tests that had been undertaken. I think that I said then that, anecdotally, we were hearing that more people were intending to claim, but I think that the final figure for the tests that had been undertaken by the time that the claims window closed was more than 1,000. There were just over 500 carbon audits, with the rest made up of soil tests.
That means that more than £1 million in funding had been allocated to that, and that is not to mention the 500 carbon audits that had already been undertaken via the Farm Advisory Service.
For track 2 of the programme, we undertook a widespread survey, which got about 1,000 responses, to understand more the knowledge about and uptake of sustainable and regenerative practices across the industry. We were quite pleased with the response rate to that.
The survey showed that the majority of people had undertaken an action such as a carbon audit or nutrient management planning. It was also important in helping us to identify people’s motivations for undertaking actions, as well as in identifying barriers or what was preventing people from undertaking specific actions. Getting those views from the survey was really helpful.
What are the barriers?
Key barriers related to knowledge and support. Progress is needed on that. Access to funding was also identified as a potential barrier. Perhaps George Burgess has further information to add.
The cabinet secretary has described the main points that came out of the survey. More recently, more detailed work has been done with a smaller group that was drawn from the 1,000 respondents whom she mentioned. Detailed one-to-one work is being done with about 60 of the individual farmer respondents to work through the list of measures that we set out in February and look at how those measures would work for them. That is all feeding back into the scheme’s design. We are also picking up feedback from the NFUS and its members. Yesterday, I heard quite positive feedback that the arable sector is really quite favourable to the list of measures.
I presume that you are taking views from across the country.
Yes.
All four corners need to be involved, because of the different topography.
Yes.
The figures are quite disappointing. What has been the outcome of soil testing? Have we seen changes in the use of fertiliser? In Ireland, 41,000 farmers applied for the lime scheme, which will produce almost immediate improvements in soil fertility. Are you disappointed that the schemes in Scotland are not delivering? Will you give us an idea of why that is?
I was glad that the figures increased towards the end of the claims window, which we had expected. We want as many people as possible to take the support that is there to undertake the actions, but we know that a lot of farmers and crofters already undertake soil testing and carbon audits. We are trying to incentivise that as much as possible.
It was the programme’s first year, and we will run it for the next couple of years, so I hope that it will continue to build and that interest will build, so that more audits and tests come through. We really encourage that, because that will give businesses their baseline, which they can make improvements from.
We want to build on the test programme and to continue to support carbon audits and soil testing. We have added support for animal health and welfare plans this year, and we hope to add biodiversity audits to the programme as we move forward.
Where are we seeing positive outcomes? Just doing a test is not positive in itself; giving a farmer a couple of hundred quid to get the vet to come in does not do anything. Where are we seeing positive results?
To hark back to Ireland, the result of soil tests there is that 41,000 farmers have applied for lime grants. Where are the improvements here? Testing is just the first step. Have you done research into the resulting benefits? The same question applies to animal health tests.
Those elements have only just launched. On the individual actions that have been taken on the back of audits, I gave the figures for support that has been claimed; I do not know whether George Burgess wants to come in on that.
Before we get to that, I agree with you that it is all very well to undertake a test, but the actions that are taken on the back of it are what is really important. As part of the soil testing, we offer £250 in personal development funding to enable and encourage upskilling, which allows people to undertake nutrient management planning.
09:30I detect a criticism from you on the funding that has been offered for animal health and welfare. However, that scheme was not designed by us alone but with our farmers and crofters, our chief vet and other key stakeholders. Together, we looked at a package that would incentivise the sector. We did not just want to undertake a plan; we also considered meaningful actions that would have an impact for those businesses. That is how the programme was developed. From the feedback that I have heard—I do not know whether George Burgess has more information—the package of available support has been well received.
There was a meeting of the British Veterinary Association in the Parliament a couple of weeks ago. Feedback from that was that the response had been good. I think that vets are encouraging their customers to participate in the scheme. On soil testing, the impact will be on individual farmers. Farmers will discover information about their soil and will then have the ability to adjust the amount of lime or fertiliser that they use. The benefits will be felt on an individual scale.
The policies will be output driven. How are you planning to record positive outcomes?
The actions and measures that people undertake will be critical to that. That is where it will be important to get feedback on some of the measures that we have outlined and what we are looking at for potential inclusion in a future framework. It is where track 2 of the testing programme comes in, because there will be detailed and in-depth work with farmers and crofters, which will allow us to see how those measures work together and understand the improvements.
I have a quick point on that. During our evidence sessions, we have heard from various members of the ARIOB and other stakeholders that it is very difficult to establish the baseline so that they can work out what the outcome is for environmental benefit. I have made the point in the chamber that it is particularly difficult because farmers have already spent thousands on thousands of pounds undertaking measures, including soil testing. They have been spending and investing their own money, because they know that doing so reduces input costs and increases productivity and efficiency. How will the Government ensure that the individuals who have already carried out those measures are rewarded? Where will the baseline start?
That is an important point. The need for recognition was raised a number of times in the debate last week. I certainly hear that when I am out and about visiting different farmers and hearing about the actions that they have already undertaken. We know that we have a lot of work to do. Initially, we want to incentivise those people who have not undertaken the actions to do so and to get the baseline information. That we recognise and reward the work that has already been done is fundamental to our thinking and planning going forward.
We are clear that we are not penalising those who, as you say, have already taken the right action. Many farmers will already have been doing soil testing, and they are still eligible to claim through our scheme. It is not like some banks that offer good interest rates only to new customers. We are ensuring that farmers who are already undertaking the right actions can benefit from what they have already done, in the same way as those who we entice into undertaking the measures.
Can you provide an update on climate change plans for Scottish agriculture, particularly on emissions targets?
We need to provide an update to our climate change plan and set out our policies for meeting targets. Work on that is on-going, and I believe that the plan is due to be published later this year.
Has progress on the plan been derailed in any way? Do you feel that it is progressing in a timely manner and in the way that was expected?
It is really challenging to meet the emissions envelope that we have set out. There is no getting around that. We have really stretching targets to meet.
We need to reduce our emissions by 2.4 megatonnes of CO2 by 2032. The work that the farmer-led groups undertook on that tells us that combining all the measures takes us to a 1 megatonne reduction, so we still have a gap to fill. The challenge exists. We are trying to see how we can work through it together and fill the gap. We are considering what further work we can do on policies that we can introduce to enable us to do that.
We have touched on livestock numbers in Scotland before. There were previously worries that the Scottish Government was going to consider some sort of scheme that would reduce livestock numbers. Will you once again go on the record to say that, when the agriculture bill is introduced, it will protect the livestock numbers that we have and avoid a reduction that might get us closer to the critical mass that would result in a rapid decline of the livestock industry in Scotland?
First of all, there is no plan to cull any livestock in Scotland. I said last week that I support our livestock industry. I see a strong role for the industry and envisage it continuing into the future. We produce livestock well in Scotland and that will continue. We do not have any policies to actively reduce livestock numbers, but I separate that from the point of putting the matter into a bill, because, as I outlined, we will be introducing a framework bill and that would not be the place to put a specific commitment such as that. I hope that you understand that, but I want to be clear and unequivocal in my comments supporting our livestock sector.
Thank you.
I find it strange that we are talking about Irish agriculture when the Irish are predicting a cull of 200,000 cows.
Cabinet secretary, will you give us your expectations regarding the future of agricultural funding support schemes in the longer term? Do you have long-term security of funding from the United Kingdom Government, given that it is the source of 96.4 per cent of the funding that comes to agriculture in Scotland?
We do not have clarity about funding beyond 2025, which makes it really difficult to plan. We have moved from a scheme that worked to seven-year programmes through the common agricultural policy, and, right now, we are working on yearly budget allocations, which makes it really difficult to plan for the future.
We currently receive about 17 per cent of the annual UK budget for agriculture. There is some concern—unless I am confused—that that will be Barnettised as the situation develops. Do you have any indication from the Treasury about what the level of funding will be? If it did Barnettise the funding, what would that mean for the Scottish pot’s ability to deliver for Scottish agriculture?
When the Bew review was undertaken, there was a commitment in it that there would be further discussion about future allocations and how they would work. We have continued to pursue that with the UK Government to try to discuss what future funding will look like. However, despite pressing for them, those discussions have never taken place.
I do not know whether George Burgess has anything to add to that.
As the cabinet secretary says, there have been no discussions, despite a number of requests for them.
I do not want to go down a Barnett formula rabbit hole, but I will give a little bit of clarity. The formula is not about absolutes, so it would not say that Scotland would get a population-related share of the spending in England. It works on increments or decreases, so, if the Treasury decided to do what Mr Fairlie suggests, it would be quite a complicated process. We simply have not had any discussions with the Treasury on it and, as the cabinet secretary says, the key point is that we simply have no clarity on funding beyond the next few years.
Have you tried to have discussions with the UK Treasury on whether there will be future funding?
Yes.
Yes, we have. We have raised it repeatedly with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and various secretaries of state that we have had throughout the time, but, as yet, there has been no response.
Okay. In a previous Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee meeting, Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland said:
“If we took an ELMS-type approach in Scotland and we phased out direct support and things such as less favoured area support for our more disadvantaged areas, that would be almost the death knell for Scottish agriculture.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 16 December 2021; c 9.]
If we wanted to adopt a different policy and we had a different scheme in Scotland to support less favoured areas, could the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 present an issue for the funding that comes to Scotland?
That has been the concern with the passing of the Subsidy Control Act 2022. We felt that that could constrain our ability to create our own bespoke policies in the future. England has developed the environmental land management scheme, and it is only right and fair that we develop schemes that work for our farmers and crofters in Scotland and that recognise the very distinct and unique challenges that we face here.
LFASS was a particular area of concern, as we felt that, because of subsidy control, if we decided on that scheme or to continue a similar scheme in the future, that could be open to challenge. I believe that guidance in relation to agriculture has been published, but we still have concerns about that.
We did not think that agriculture should have been included in the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in the first place. It was unusual for that to be done. I do not think that any of the consultation analysis in relation to why that should have been included in a subsidy control regime was shared with us.
I will pass over to George Burgess, who might have more information, particularly on the guidance point.
Agriculture is treated differently in terms of subsidy control at World Trade Organization and European Union levels. As the cabinet secretary has said, we simply do not understand the rationale for lumping it in with other sectors in the domestic scheme.
Does it not concern you that you do not know why agriculture has been lumped in, given the fact that the funding that goes to it is almost double what it would be under a Barnettised system? I know that I keep going back to the Barnettised system, but that is generally how cash is generated other than through the block grant. Does it not concern you that there has been no explanation of why that was the UK Government’s approach?
It does. As the cabinet secretary has said, we expressed our opposition to that on a number of occasions and asked for justification. However, very little has come back by way of justification.
The Subsidy Control Act 2022 provides opportunities for individuals to challenge. DEFRA might be fine with our proposed schemes, but it would take only one person to mount a case about not being able to claim whereas a farmer or crofter in Scotland or Wales could claim and a challenge could be brought forward. That adds to the uncertainty.
Okay. The summit that Rishi Sunak held in 10 Downing Street was very welcome. The UK Government seems to have had a change of direction on farm to fork. However, I was incredibly disappointed that you were not invited to that event, cabinet secretary, given that we are supposed to have a four-nations approach. Was any reason given for why you should not have been at a discussion at a UK level on what was going to happen with the farm industries across the UK?
I clarify that devolved Administration ministers were not invited to the event in Downing Street. George Burgess was invited to attend, so there was official representation there. The invitation came in at very short notice—I think that there was around a week’s notice beforehand. We raised our involvement in that at the interministerial group, given the devolved nature of what was being discussed, and the other devolved Administrations have raised that issue as well.
It is absolutely vital that we get UK Government ministers to come to the committee to answer the questions that we continue to raise with the Scottish Government. We can get no answers to those questions, because the Scottish Government cannot get answers from the UK Government.
I concur with that last point.
My question is about how the Scottish Government is preparing for the possibility that the UK Government will go in a different direction. Obviously, the Scottish Government is indicating its commitment to active farming in a way that we have not heard as clearly from the UK Government. Do you have any concerns about your policy direction being undermined by a radically different direction from the UK Government?
The concerns broadly relate to the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and the measures through that. There could potentially be challenges in the future to policies that we would look to introduce or to have here again, recognising our distinct and unique circumstances in Scotland and how our industry is different from that of England, for example.
09:45We are still to see how that will develop, but it is frustrating, because we did not need to be in a position where agriculture was included. Because of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, we now have less freedom and flexibility to design our own policy than we would have had as a member of the EU. We will have to carefully consider that as we move forward and develop our own policy.
Last week in the chamber, in answer to a question from me, John Swinney said that the £33 million of funding following from the Bew review, which he had deferred when he was Finance Secretary, would be returned to the agriculture and rural budget. He did not give a timescale but said that that would happen in future years.
We know what the finance secretary, Shona Robison, said on Thursday about the financial black hole and the pressure that Scotland faces to cut spending or increase taxation, so do you have a timescale for the return of that £33 million?
I do not have a definitive timeline yet, but I will continue discussions with the Deputy First Minister about when that money will be returned to the portfolio.
I also want to be absolutely clear that that money is ring fenced. It must come back to the portfolio and cannot be spent in other areas. It will be returned to the portfolio, but the detail of the timeline is still to be determined.
I do not know where that money goes. For clarity, has it been allocated to something else? Will it have to be found again? I do not suppose that you know that answer. It seems to me that the money can just come back if it has just been sitting somewhere. Has it been used? Does it have to be found and returned?
I will hand over to George Burgess, who can explain more of the detail of that.
The removal of that money from the RAI portfolio allowed the Scottish Government to reduce its overall spending and achieve a balanced budget. The money is not sitting in a bank account somewhere, but we have a commitment—as already expressed by the previous Deputy First Minister and again by the current Deputy First Minister—that that ring-fenced money will return to the portfolio in a future year.
Our central finance colleagues will have the difficult job of finding that money within the overall Scottish Government budget to ensure that it comes back into the portfolio. As we have already said, we have no certainty about funding from the UK beyond two years from now, so we might come to a point, not very far down the line, when we really need that money to come back in to plug a much larger hole.
That was in a previous financial year, so those things cannot be related.
When is ring fenced not ring fenced? If you have taken £33 million out of a ring-fenced budget, that money is surely not ring fenced.
As George Burgess outlined, it helps us. The most adequate way to describe it is to say that it is almost like making a loan back to the centre that must be returned in future years.
So, the money is not really ring fenced.
It is ring fenced.
It is not in the budget any more.
It is different from any other Scottish Government funding, which could be moved from health to education to transport. This money is allocated for agricultural purposes and can be spent only on agricultural purposes.
It was not spent on that. It was taken out of the agriculture budget and spent on something else.
It will come back.
It was taken. The £33 million was taken out of the budget to be spent on something else.
It was taken out of the budget, but it was not spent. As I tried to explain earlier, it allowed overall Scottish Government spending to be reduced, to stay within the limits.
The money was used for something other than the agriculture budget, which we suggested was not ring fencing.
It was offered as a saving; it was not spent in another area. That is what George Burgess is trying to make clear.
It is not very clear.
I would be happy to follow up with more information and to detail that, if that would be helpful. The money was not spent in any other area; it was offered as a saving.
It was just not in the agriculture budget, even though it was ring fenced.
Yes.
We have heard about Barnett consequentials and about how agriculture in Scotland is different, so it needs to be viewed differently. What is your specific spending ask of the UK Government? Is it £650 million or more each year ad infinitum? Is the figure linked to inflation? What is your specific ask of the Treasury for the agriculture budget? The NFU is unclear about what the Scottish Government’s ask is. What are you asking the UK Government for and how would that money be formulated?
Essentially, we are asking for our fair share of funding. We already face a shortfall in what we were promised on the back of Brexit—we were promised that agriculture funding would be replaced in full, which it has not been. We have a £93 million shortfall, so we expect at least that, if not more.
So, you are looking for £720 million or thereabouts.
We would welcome more funding from the UK Government, but we should—
This is really important. You need to have an ask. Are you asking for £800 million this year and next year? You talked about multiyear funding. How will you pull together the ask? Is it for £800 million or £900 million? How will you negotiate that? Will the funding be ring fenced? I need to have that clear in my mind because, when we asked the NFU about the subject, it was not clear. It said that having £650 million next year would be fine, more or less, as long as the funding was multiyear.
What are you asking the Treasury for? Do you have to submit a business plan for the agriculture spend that you foresee over the next five to 10 years, which the Treasury has to approve? If so, that would suggest that agriculture was not devolved. What is your ask of the UK Treasury for the next five years?
On all the points that you are talking about, the position is not as straightforward as going and asking for £X million in funding. As I said, we expect at least the previous promises to be fulfilled and the shortfall to be addressed, but the whole point is that we need to have the discussion on allocations and go through the detail.
What is your position?
We need to discuss the situation with the UK Government.
But what is your position?
I cannot set out for the committee today a definitive figure, because we need to have the discussion on how the allocations will work, but we are not even getting that far.
You say that you have asked over and over for the discussion, but what we and Scottish farmers need to know is what your position is. Do you see the funding as a fixed grant? How do you proceed with that? Does the Scottish Government agree its agriculture policy then tell the Treasury that it needs £800 million to fund that? What is your policy? What would be your ideal situation? Is the figure inflation linked? Your ask of the Treasury is completely unclear.
I would simply say that it is probably not the best way to begin a negotiation by broadcasting your starting point and your fallback. That would not be a good thing for us to do at this stage.
I do not think that farmers will think that that is a good position—they want some clarity. Do you not have a position on your ideal scenario—whether that is £800 million, £900 million or £1 billion—and how that would be formulated?
We are getting into questions about what we would be looking to go into a negotiation with that it is not appropriate for us to discuss right here and right now, as George Burgess said. We still have the critical points that need to be addressed—the complete lack of clarity and the shortfall so far that needs to be addressed in the interim at least and which we expect to be addressed going forward.
We want to discuss what an allocation would look like for Scotland, as was promised in response to the Bew review. That promise has not yet been fulfilled and we are being ignored on that.
What clarity are you seeking from the Treasury?
I have outlined that. Going forward, we need to have clarity and certainty about what funding will look like, because we cannot plan for budgets beyond 2025 or even get an overall figure, which constrains what we can do. Initially, we want clarity, but the most important thing is having the first conversation, which is not happening.
I presume that the issue comes down to not what you ask for but what you are given. Were things simpler when you had a regime of seven-year funding, as was the case pre-Brexit?
Yes.
So, one of your asks of the Treasury is for funding over seven years. The next bit is how you are going to formulate your ask. Is it going to be based on environmental schemes or on production? How would that be reviewed over a seven-year period? I would have thought that those are fairly straightforward questions. What is your position on what your desired outcome might be? Should you not focus on that rather than waiting for clarity from the UK Government? I do not know what it could base that on.
Again, we need to have that conversation. Ultimately, we want to be able to design and fund a system that will work for us, in Scotland, and not have those constraints from the UK Government.
What constraints?
The ones that we have talked about so far—the potential policy constraints that we could face on what we design. We have talked about the multiyear funding as well. I think that you are trying to pin me down to responses that I cannot give you today. The important thing is that we need to make sure that we get the shortfalls addressed and that we at least start to have those conversations, which have not begun yet.
It is a bit hypocritical. You cannot tell us about the £33 million shortfall, never mind any other shortfalls.
It is not hypocritical at all. I think that you are confusing points that are not remotely related.
On a point of order, convener, that was unparliamentary language.
I am seeking clarity. I would suggest that the position on the £33 million is not unlike the uncertainty that we get going forward.
I disagree with that, because £33 million will be returned to the portfolio and must be spent within it, whereas we do not know what funding will be allocated to the portfolio. We do not know how much we will get or when it will come.
Okay. Thank you for that. We will move on to questions on forestry from Christine Grahame.
We will have a change of temperature with my questions on trees. This whole thing is new to me, but I was surprised to learn that the policy aim is to have 21 per cent of Scotland covered by forests by 2032. I do not know whether that would be terribly popular with lots of people. I would like to know whether those trees are going to be Sitka spruce. I remember the whole of Galloway being covered by Sitka spruce. I also understand from the Scottish Land Commission that an unintended consequence may have been an increase in land values.
I am learning as I go, so I may be asking things that are very stupid, which I am well known for. I note that the criteria for getting grants have a great deal to do with what is planted and where. I appreciate that the consultation concluded just this month, so this question might be premature, but can you give me your thoughts on how the grant system might operate so that we get the right trees in the right places, communities and farmers are in the main content and we can reach your 21 per cent target?
I do not think that those are stupid questions at all. They are the issues that we are grappling with, because we absolutely want to see the right trees in the right places. That is about how we can have the right balance between commercial tree planting—to support the timber industry in Scotland—and native tree planting.
It is too early for me to talk about what changes might be made to the scheme, given that the consultation closed only within the past couple of weeks. I think that we had more than 200 responses to the consultation and we will need to analyse them before setting out what changes could be made. However, it is really about trying to identify what the barriers are at the moment and how we can support the better integration of trees on farms.
Do you agree that we did things wrong in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when large swathes of Galloway, for instance, were planted in Sitka spruce? That was not good for the environment. There was a sort of boundary of native trees to conceal them, but it was really just a great big harvesting crop. I hope that those days have gone. Do you agree?
We definitely learn lessons from what has happened in the past. Again, it is about getting the right mix with, as you said, the right trees in the right places.
You mentioned the timber industry in Scotland. I thought that we had lost it, actually. I think that Mr Burgess is indicating that that is not the case. There are several things that proper afforestation can do for wildlife and the climate, but also for industry. Mr Burgess, can you tell us whether that is part of your thinking about the kind of afforestation that will go ahead?
Forestry is not my area, specifically—
But you made a face when I said that I thought that we had lost that industry.
I can think of several significant timber businesses in Scotland, including in Ayrshire and near Inverness. There is a pretty active timber industry.
Are they processing Sitka spruce or other varieties?
They will be processing everything that is available to them.
10:00
Cabinet secretary, your portfolio has changed somewhat. What are your responsibilities with regard to forestry? I know that you are responsible for more than just agroforestry.
I assumed the responsibilities in relation to peatland, forestry and land reform that previously sat with the Minister for Environment and Land Reform.
Thank you.
Will you give us an overview of the work that the food security unit is carrying out?
Yes, I am happy to do so, and I will be happy to keep the committee updated on the unit’s work as it develops.
As I outlined in last week’s debate, the Scottish Government’s food security unit is now up and running. Initially, it will focus on monitoring the risks and potential threats to the supply chain. Last year, we had the report from the food security and supply task force. That was a really useful piece of work because it highlighted where some of the evidence gaps might be and where further work needs to be done. It was helpful in making recommendations for us to pick up. The food security unit can continue that work.
Essentially, the work of the unit is about monitoring the risks and identifying what we can do in the short term. Although it is, of course, impossible to know what challenges might come down the road, the unit is seeking to identify any potential threats that could harm our food security in the future.
It would be useful for the committee to receive, as soon as possible, an update—a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis—on the challenges that our farming and crofting sectors face. I believe that there has been a contraction of 12 per cent in the beef herd. Our critical mass is reducing rapidly: we are now down to 413,000 cattle.
Given that we face a contraction of a sector that provides an essential source of protein and an affordable source of food, I would like the food security unit to provide clarity on the future of the agricultural support scheme. It should also let us know what the risks are in the supply chain. Last year, the Scottish Government reduced the funding for abattoirs from £0.5 million to £5,000. I have those figures here, if the cabinet secretary needs them.
What is the food security unit trying to do, other than state the obvious?
I have outlined the initial piece of work that it will be doing. You asked for specific information about what the unit will be looking at.
But the contraction that I mentioned is happening as we speak.
Absolutely. I am happy to come back with further information. You asked for some analysis in relation to the issues that the unit will consider. I am happy to provide that.
However, you also mentioned specific areas that will not necessarily fall within the remit of the food security unit. For example, you asked for clarity on future support schemes. We have set out the route map in relation to that. It is not the food security unit’s job to provide that information. We will provide that information according to the timelines that are outlined in our route map.
You mentioned the funding of abattoirs. I would like you to send me the further information that you referred to, because I want to interrogate the detail of it. There might be funding from different schemes. I want to understand the position more.
There are a number of pieces of work being done in other areas. We are taking forward a pilot in relation to our smallholders. Part of that work is about abattoirs and the future of processing. I think that a survey will be undertaken quite soon, because I know that that continues to be an issue.
So, not all of those are specific pieces of work that our food security unit would take forward but there are links and given where the food security unit sits, there will be crossover and it will be engaging with colleagues and wider stakeholders. There are specific pieces of work that will be undertaken by other areas.
I will give you an example from the conversation that I had with islanders yesterday. It is really important that the food security unit engages with the individuals responsible for transport in the Scottish Government because the unreliable ferry services have caused issues in getting livestock to market. We know that islanders have been having to supplement feeding because of a lack of grassland, for example. They are booking slots way ahead to get the store lambs off the islands to market, but they are being let down by the ferries. There are animal welfare issues in the islands because of it. As you have already acknowledged, there is a huge impact on the wider economic benefit to the islands. If there is anything in the food security unit that is not currently transparent, it is that cross-departmental work.
That follows on from the discussion that we had last week, when we talked about the national islands plan. A lot of cross-Government work goes on, particularly by islands officials, that relates to that. I was in Shetland the other week and similar issues were raised. We liaise with our colleagues across Government to ensure that we tackle those issues as best we can.
We will move on to fisheries. Annabel Turpie will be pleased to hear that.
What progress has been made on the 12 action points that are set out in the future fisheries management strategy?
I am happy to provide an update. I do not know whether you want me to run through every single action, but I point the committee to the delivery plan for each of the actions that is set out in the future fisheries management strategy, which we published last year. That shows where we are against the strategy and how we intend to deliver against the actions. I will draw out some key pieces of work as examples, and Annabel Turpie will, no doubt, want to add to those.
The first action in the future fisheries management strategy is about promoting fisheries as a safe career of choice for people. We have provided Seafish with more than £400,000 to deliver free safety training for the fishing industry, and we have spent about £2.1 million on encouraging new entrants into the industry, which was funded through the marine fund Scotland.
Work has been progressing in other areas, too. The future catching policy is listed as an action in the strategy. We consulted on that last year and we are due to publish the results of the consultation soon. It was quite a technical consultation. However, when we look to implement the policies, we expect to see some positive steps forward.
There are also actions in the strategy around local resilience, connecting to local markets and enhancing global markets for seafood. We have published a seafood strategy. We have talked about the importance of our seafood trade, of confidence in it and of its resilience, but our policy commitments relating to remote electronic monitoring and vessel tracking are important in delivering that, too. We have had a consultation on remote electronic monitoring, which we launched at the same time as the future policy consultation, and we hope to be in a position to publish the results of that soon. Many pieces of work have been under way.
It certainly sounds like it. What work has been undertaken specifically on strengthening co-management processes?
There have been further developments in relation to that since the delivery plan was published. We have talked about strengthening our regional inshore fisheries groups. There has been a refresh of that network and we appointed six new chairpeople. We also extended the groups’ reach out to 12 nautical miles. That is one development.
We have also done a refresh of our fisheries management and conservation group and how it operates. That is about getting all the different stakeholders round the table and trying to move forward on a lot of the key areas and issues that we face. That group has been established with terms of reference. We are using a hub-and-spoke model, so we have the main FMAC group and four sub-groups that feed into it. We have one on inshore fisheries, one on scallops and one on fishing and climate change. The name of the last one has escaped me, but I am sure that Annabel Turpie can provide that information.
As well as the refresh of that group and the regional inshore fisheries groups, we hope to undertake a review of the regional inshore fisheries groups in the summer next year, just to see how all of that is operating.
The four sub-groups are on inshore fisheries issues, scallop fishing, future catching policy, and fisheries and climate change issues. We intend to form one other sub-group, which will focus on the fisheries management plan.
I will give an example of what the cabinet secretary has outlined. The sub-group on future catching policy will be heavily involved in this technically complicated, if not complex, policy area, so that we have expertise on that and can move things forward. That is a good example, because it has already met and it has terms of reference. We are planning future catching policy workshops over the summer, which that sub-group will be heavily involved in, because we cannot do this successfully unless our stakeholders are working with us at the table.
There is a lot going on with marine protected areas, highly protected marine areas and international fisheries negotiations. Are any changes planned to the structure of Marine Scotland?
We are focusing very hard on how we adapt to the increasing demands of our people across Scotland—our communities, our marine industries and the people of Scotland generally—in relation to how we use marine to play our part in addressing the climate change and biodiversity crisis. We are moving to more of a project and programme model. We deliver lots of services in the marine directorate. We do licensing and consenting, and last year we provided £9.7 million-worth of science data, whether that was surveys or analysis of them. We deliver those services, but we are also really focused on how we can best serve the people of Scotland by bringing people together in teams to deliver our increasingly demanding workload.
One of the advantages of that is that we are bringing together people who have real expertise and depth of experience in stakeholder relationships and fisheries, fisheries management and aquaculture alongside marine protection. In that way, we are ensuring that we look at things in the round. That also means that we can be quite fleet of foot when we need to be, which we are all experiencing the need for as demands increase.
It might be helpful to the committee if you could set out the changes to the historical structure of Marine Scotland, how you see the structure going forward, and how that is going to improve the way that you work with the industry.
I am very happy to do that. I can send something in writing.
Thank you.
How does the Scottish Government intend to use marine spatial planning tools such as the national marine plan and regional marine planning to mitigate the loss of fishing grounds that is associated with potential HPMAs and forthcoming inshore fisheries management measures?
There are currently no spatially explicit measures in the national marine plan. However, with regard to our marine planning, the measures that are outlined in the national planning framework 4 and our regional marine plans all look to develop that spatial planning further.
We are developing a new national marine plan: NMP2. I believe that there will be a national planning forum meeting on that in the next month so that stakeholders can feed into that process. That specific spatial ask is being considered as part of the work that is being taken forward in relation to NMP2. Annabel Turpie might want to add some further information.
10:15
I do not have much to add to what the cabinet secretary has outlined. Clearly, that is Ms McAllan’s area of responsibility. However, I will say two things. First, as we mentioned in FMAC, it is really important to work with industry on how we can best engage strategically to join together all the multiple strands of engagements so that we are not discussing them in isolation. Secondly, we need to make sure that we have collective reporting across multiple programmes of work so that we can understand the progress.
In the future fisheries management strategy delivery, we will undertake a consultation on vessel tracking because we know that it is vital that we increasingly listen and capture as much data and analysis as possible on fishing patterns, as well as other industry patterns, so that we have the best socioeconomic analysis of that. That will enable us to look at matters—the environment, the community and social impact, the economic and marine impact and the industry impact—in the round. We are taking forward a whole suite of measures that will increase our ability to have really good socioeconomic analysis.
Thanks for that. I hear what you say about HPMAs being in Ms McAllan’s remit, but the issues are connected. The creelers and divers who have spoken to me have all said that they want to protect habitats for fish and shellfish so that they become more abundant and our seas can support more fishers fishing for more fish.
HPMAs, which are in effect fish nurseries, should be a policy that creelers naturally support. I believe that HPMAs, otherwise known as no-take zones, could still attract their support if the surrounding fisheries management measures give them sufficient space and protection from the mobile sector. I am looking for your reassurance that the Scottish Government is exploring ways to support low-impact creelers and divers so that our inshores can sustain more jobs in fishing, not fewer.
We will be engaging with all those key sectors as we move forward. We have recently had a number of debates in the Scottish Parliament to consider some of the issues that have been raised, and it is really important we take all of that into consideration. However, that is also important in relation to the networks that I have talked about and the refresh of those networks that we have undertaken. That will be vital going forward, so that we can really encourage that working together and multilateral engagement as we look to work through some of the issues.
I stress that we want to hear people’s ideas. The co-production model is very much based on the fact that, together, we have all the bits of the answer. Government alone does not have all the answers and it would be foolish to suggest that that was the case. If people have great ideas that they want to try or analysis that they want to share with us, I ask that they please bring those things to us. That is what we want—there is an open-door policy and we use the stakeholder groups. We have to ensure that we are getting the best ideas that are out there. In the run-up to the HPMA consultation, we did 20 events out and about, because we wanted to hear people’s ideas.
Do you think that people in the sector and in general really understand the shifting baseline syndrome in our fisheries and the level of decline that we are facing? We have legal obligations to manage our fisheries to good environmental status. There are the indicators, and we understand from one of them—I think that it is number 11—that the sea bed is severely damaged, which is one of the reasons why we need to bring in more protections. It is all connected, and, if we want fishing for the future, we have to bring in those protections. However, I get the sense that people maybe do not fully understand that we are dealing with a very degraded situation and that, if we do not do anything now, there will not be anything to bring back.
In the engagement that I have had, I have certainly met a lot of passionate people in each of their sectors, who all greatly value and know the importance of the sustainability of the stocks that they fish and catch—
It is not just the stocks; it is also the sea bed. When I bring this issue up, the discussion goes to stocks, but the sea bed is the critical factor for fisheries, for bringing the fish stocks back and for the ecosystem that we need in order to see our waters flourish.
Absolutely, but it is in everybody’s best interests to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries. That is what we want to see, and it is what the industry wants to see going forward.
We are seeing some fantastic pieces of work around our coastline that are being led by fishers. We have a couple of inshore fisheries pilots at the moment and, so far, they are showing us really positive results. There is the Mull crab box and we have one in the Outer Hebrides as well. That brings me back to what Annabel Turpie said about working with the different sectors, bringing all those different threads together and seeing how we can move forward.
I think that everybody appreciates that our seas are changing—there is no doubt about that—but we all want to ensure that we have a sustainable sector and sustainable industries. Ultimately, that is what we want to work together to achieve.
I welcome the use of words such as co-production and the like because I know that there is real concern, especially around HPMAs, that things are going to forced on people from the top down. There is a wee bit of concern that that is being done by a different department and that it is not joined up. How can we join it up and make sure that co-production works?
When people speak to me, I hear that they are really keen on making sure that there are areas that are protected but that they do not want those to be imposed on them. They want to be part of making those decisions and making sure that fishing is sustainable. In a way, a lot has been lost because of that impression, so we need to change that. I know that creelers and divers are just as concerned as mobile gear boats are, so how can we involve them more? They are not going to come to Edinburgh and knock on your door.
I apologise if I have given the wrong impression. The marine directorate is working on HPMAs and MPAs as well as on fisheries management, FMAC, aquaculture and so on. It is the portfolio responsibilities that are split. Ms McAllan leads on HPMAs and MPAs and Ms Gougeon leads on fishing and aquaculture, but we join up across those areas. We are bringing together the people with the expertise to work across them. One of the things that Ms Gougeon and I have been discussing doing over the summer is giving the committee a road map that shows how all those things link together. I think that something like that has been done for agriculture, which has been helpful. If the committee would find that helpful, I would like to do it.
We are working through the many consultation responses that we have had. As the First Minister and Ms McAllan have said, she will be doing a summer tour. I know that Ms Gougeon is already meeting groups to discuss HPMAs and we will, of course, be working through FMAC as well. The need to listen to people is absolutely being heard loud and clear and understood.
I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I met a huge number of creelers and trawlers on Monday and they said that the phone rings off the hook to Marine Scotland and they never get any reply. They do not feel listened to. That is an important issue to take forward.
I am so glad that you are defending the industry in terms of sustainability, cabinet secretary, because there is so much misinformation out there. What I heard from the fishermen is that they are very concerned about their safety. They already have a challenging role to play in going out to get those sustainable protein sources to feed our nation. If they are displaced, it means that they will be forced to go into areas that are dangerous and they will not even be able to take shelter.
There are a number of issues that need to be worked through with Marine Scotland and I implore you to actually listen to people who know what they are talking about. I hear you say that you are listening, but that is not the case. They are devastated and they are on their knees. Many members of this committee agree with me.
If you are saying that people are getting in touch and they are not getting any response, I want to follow that up, because that should not be happening.
I have undertaken to meet some industry representatives, as I think I mentioned in my committee appearance last week, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition is doing the same, because we want to do that active engagement and go out and listen to people. I am not going to prejudge the outcome or the next steps of the consultation, because we are still working through the responses.
I appreciate the point about displacement and the issues that could arise from that, and that will all be factored in to any decision making as we go forward. We recognise the importance of the fishing industry to our coastal and island communities and to Scotland’s wider economy. That is why we support the industry.
Our negotiations have secured £486 million for our fishers. Annabel Turpie mentioned some of the figures for what we spend on science and how we are trying to encourage new entrants. We also spend £22 million on compliance. We continue to invest in the industry because we see a role for it now and we also want it to be sustainable for the future. Our blue economy vision also recognises food security and food production because they are critical for the future.
Members should bear in mind that we are now fast approaching the end of the session, so they should try to keep their questions and answers as succinct as possible. We move on to a question from Alasdair Allan.
The committee looked at the Clyde cod seasonal spawn closure some time ago, and one of the issues that we heard about was the certain need for vessel monitoring systems and other forms of monitoring. Could you say a bit more about what monitoring has taken place?
I would be happy to. Work has been undertaken by Marine Scotland scientists together with scientists from the University of Strathclyde to look initially at the stock assessments for cod, haddock and whiting. They have been collating the information that we have received from scientific surveys as well as information from commercial fisheries. With that information, they are looking to develop qualitative stock assessments.
Annabel Turpie, do you want to add anything further about the monitoring?
Over the summer, we will engage with our stakeholders to gather their views on our strategic objectives. We will share our analysis of that when it has been peer reviewed and has gone through the usual checks.
My other question is to ask for the timescale for that. Am I right in thinking that it is a two-year process? What kind of conversations are you having with fishermen? Fishermen seem to engage well with this form of science and there seems to be a lot of support for VMS in particular. What kind of engagement are you having with the fishing community about all of that?
You are absolutely right that we have used biennial closures, and this will be the second closure that we have had. We had a consultation in the lead-up to the previous closure, so we will undertake another consultation. I cannot give a definitive timescale for that yet, but we are looking to do it soon. We will continue to keep the committee updated on that.
To go back to the point about misinformation on fisheries, I refer members and anyone else who is listening to some excellent papers that the Shetland Fishermen’s Association has produced, entitled “Fishy Falsehoods”, one of which is about the impact of trawling on the sea bed. It says that there is scientific evidence that shows that the
“true impact of trawling on the seabed is much less than the lurid headlines would suggest.”
I will go on to my question. What key outcomes and challenges for the Scottish fishing fleet are emerging from the latest international fisheries negotiations?
As I outlined previously, we have secured about £486 million of fishing opportunities, but, within that, there are changes in the different stocks from previous years. One of the main challenges is the cut of around 30 per cent to the monkfish total allowable catch. I am really keen that we work together with industry and see how we can better develop the evidence base around that.
Although we have seen that cut in monkfish catch, there have been increases in other stocks, which are looking quite strong. We have seen some quite big increases in North Sea cod, North Sea haddock and whiting. Detailed information on the percentage changes is set out in a letter that I sent to the committee in January, but we have seen some positive moves in relation to some stocks. However, again, there are particular areas of challenge on some species that are valuable to Scotland.
10:30
I am pleased that you mentioned monkfish, given its importance and value to the white fish fleet. If more work was done by Marine Scotland to properly assess monkfish stocks—doing that could avoid further quota cuts—would you ensure that the importance of monkfish to Scotland is matched by increased scientific efforts? Annabel Turpie highlighted earlier that you provided £9.7 million-worth of science data. Is there any intention to increase that?
We want to work with industry to see how we can better improve scientific efforts—on monkfish, in particular. That is exactly what we are looking to do.
We have touched on this already, but the REUL bill that is going through the House of Commons will touch on—if that is the right way to put it—areas of devolved competence, some of which affect food safety and other areas that are of interest to the committee. What are the Scottish Government’s expectations regarding UK ministers use of powers in the bill, given that we appear to be in territory where the UK Government does not need to obtain consent from the Scottish Parliament on some of those issues? Can you tell us what point that debate has reached in the areas that affect your portfolio?
I will certainly try to. The bill has been a bit of a moving feast as it has progressed through the UK Parliament, so I might ask George Burgess if he can give you some more specific details on that.
We started in a position whereby all retained EU law was intended to be sunsetted at the end of this year. Thankfully, the UK Government has changed course from that. Unfortunately, a lot of work had already been undertaken to prepare for it, because it was going to be a very significant challenge. Instead, the UK Government has published a schedule of about 587 instruments that it is looking to sunset towards the end of the year.
We had an interministerial group meeting on Monday 22 May, at which I asked the then DEFRA secretary of state whether there would be any further changes to the schedule and what the process would be if there was a disagreement in relation to what was on it. There has been continuing movement, particularly over the past week, in how that work has developed.
Are you now talking about ping-pong between the two houses of the UK Parliament?
Yes. The process for legislative consent had been triggered, but the UK Government said it would be carrying on regardless of whether it received that confirmation, so that has been frustrating throughout the process.
The key concern in all of this is that the bill contains powers that would mean that the UK Government and its ministers could amend or revoke devolved legislation. There is no consent mechanism in the legislation. Even though there are 587 instruments in the schedule, the whole of retained EU legislation, where it relates to devolved areas, is open to the UK Government. We are talking about thousands of pieces of legislation that the UK Government would have the power to change until 2026.
What is the Scottish Government’s position on that? This committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee will probably have in their remit the bulk of the laws that will be revoked, reviewed or whatever. Once that legislation is sitting with the Scottish Ministers, how will you engage with committees on that?
I want to be clear that we will absolutely do that engagement. There have been frustrations about the pace that the bill has moved at. We have been trying to get answers to those questions so that we can get the correct processes in place. As far as I am aware, those discussions are on-going. George Burgess may have more information.
Some discussion was already going on between the parliamentary authorities and the Scottish Government about the handling of what we expected would be a considerable number of statutory instruments. The original plan was to save bits of retained EU law. As the cabinet secretary outlined, the recent change in moving to a schedule to repeal 500 or more instruments means that fewer instruments will come to the Parliament. We simply do not know at this stage how many instruments there might be, but this will probably be a smaller than expected issue for the Scottish Government and Parliament to deal with.
We have been making efforts in recent weeks to scrutinise the list of 500 instruments to ensure that there is nothing there that would be a problem for us. Most of them, fortunately, seem to be old or defunct bits of European or domestic legislation that will not cause a problem. We are ensuring that nothing slips through the net.
I have a quick question on crofting reform. We were promised reform in the previous session of Parliament, but that slipped because of Covid. It is really urgent. It may not seem a lot to many people, but it is stopping crofting development. When will reform happen and can you guarantee that it will happen during this session of Parliament?
I have made commitments about that. As I said in connection with the agriculture bill, I cannot give a definitive timescale as to when any legislation will be introduced.
It is important to highlight the work that is already under way. I think that this issue is really important and I want to assure the committee that I hear what you are saying. We have increased the Crofting Commission’s budget and have been working with the commission to see how we can start to address some of the issues that it is up against, which I hope will start to improve things.
We re-established the crofting bill group last year. It has met 10 times so far, more meetings are planned and all the relevant stakeholders are being considered. The bill group has considered some of the issues that were raised by the previous rural committee in its report on crofting. In his contribution to the agriculture policy debate last week, Alasdair Allan raised something that I did not have an opportunity to touch on in my summing up, which is that there has been a degree of consensus on tackling some of the issues.
Good progress is being made. I assure you that work is progressing well and that it is still our intention to introduce crofting reform. I will be happy to keep the committee updated.
Will that happen in this session of Parliament?
That is the commitment that we have set out, because we realise the importance of the issues.
Some specific details of that subject relate to the wider debate about agricultural policy. As you have alluded, there have been efforts to identify problems, and the crofting law slump exists. As I and many others have pointed out, a single shareholder in a common grazing has the right to veto environmental and agricultural projects. I do not want to list all the issues, but, in some places, croft tenancies are changing hands for truly ridiculous sums of money that clearly have nothing to do with agriculture. Is the Government beginning to give thought to some of those specific issues in advance of any legislation?
Some of those issues are being picked up and discussed by the crofting bill group. We are keen to make progress if there are areas where we can do so without requiring legislation. I appreciate the points that you have raised today and during last week’s debate, and I assure you that those points are very much in the minds of members of the bill group as they do that work.
I apologise to members that we have run out of time for questions, but we will write to the cabinet secretary on some topics, specifically licensing activities that involve animals, and the Government’s position now that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—which the Scottish Government might or might not have been minded to consent to—will not go through the Westminster Parliament. Also, timescales for proposed—
I am sorry to interrupt, but can we also ask about rescue and rehoming centres? Some of them are quite well meaning but amateur. Will that also be part of the work?
I can give a quick assurance that that will be part of the consultation. We will be looking to announce that and take those licensing proposals forward in the coming weeks.
Okay—that is helpful. We are looking for more information on the recommendations from the programme board, on timescales for the proposed Scottish veterinary service and for commencing substantive sections of the good food nation plan, and on where we are with the development of the good food nation plan and setting up the Scottish food commission.
I can give a very quick response in response to that last point. I wrote to the committee—I think that that was in January—with a broad outline for the timetables for when we would introduce the good food nation plan and the commission. We are still working to those timescales; nothing has changed and nothing has slipped in relation to that. We hope that we will be looking to consult on a draft good food nation plan over the coming months.
Thank you very much. We very much appreciate your time this morning—
On a point of order, convener. My colleague Alasdair Allan raised a point of order with you earlier on, which you did not seem to have answered, about whether your language—when you accused the minister and her official of being hypocrites—was appropriate. The cabinet secretary has been extremely generous with her time in coming to this committee on multiple occasions.
I would also like to ask you these questions: have we, as a committee, written to the secretary of state for agriculture in Westminster? Have we had a response to that request for her to appear here? If so, what was that response?
Thank you, Mr Fairlie. I think that the word “hypocritical” is not necessarily unparliamentary, given what we were discussing. I think that it was a hard line of questioning, and I am comfortable with that.
I will refer to the response that we gave to Mr Fairlie last week, which is on the record, that we would write to the UK Government after our meeting with the cabinet secretary. It is a matter of record that that was raised last week.
Have we specifically written to the minister to ask her to attend our committee, given the number of areas where there is crossover between policies?
Mr Fairlie, maybe if you paid attention you would remember that, last week, we said that we had had a response from the cabinet secretary to say that they were not able to attend at that time. That is published and it is a matter of public record, so it is on the website. You would have received that correspondence. Last week, we also touched on the topic of further information from the UK Government, and the decision was taken a few weeks ago that we would write to the secretary of state on the back of this meeting with the cabinet secretary to raise any concerns that we had from that. I think that you will see that both of those issues have been covered.
Can I clarify? We have written to the secretary of state—
Mr Fairlie, I think that I have already put on record exactly what you have asked. I am now going to suspend this meeting—
No, I am not actually clear on what your response was.
10:43 Meeting suspended.