Chamber and committees

The work that we have set out is a key step in that regard. As I said in response to Jamie Halcro Johnston, the position taken in this order might not be the same as it would be the next time that we introduce an instrument, because there might be more evidence or monitoring to draw from by that time, which could result in changes. I cannot prejudge that, but that is why I point to the work that we have set out as the key step in helping us to develop that wider picture.

You raise an important point. I go back to the point that Coby Needle made earlier about how engagement with fishers has already altered some of the plans that we had. You are absolutely right that they are the experts in the areas where they fish, which they know really well. That is why we want to continue to work with them.

I go back to Allan Gibb’s earlier point about all the measures in totality. How well the recovery is going is due to all the measures that we have implemented across the piece, including those to reduce bycatch and to protect the spawning areas. Those have all been critical to enabling the recovery.

As I said, we have been using the same evidence base that we supplied previously. At that time, there were similar questions about the science that we were using. As I have said many times today, we use the best scientific evidence that is available to us on which to base our decisions.

I appreciate what you say about the efforts that Rhoda Grant has made. However, as I have pointed out, if we annul the instrument that is in front of us today, there is no protection in place. We would not be able to bring forward another order in time to enable any changes to be made, let alone to allow time for us to undertake further monitoring and gather more information and evidence through the measures that I have talked about.

Again, I say that I cannot pre-empt what that work is going to look like or what evidence it may produce. Nevertheless, I emphasise that, if we annul the order that is in front of us today, there will be no protections in place for spawning cod. I appreciate that it is about working together to find a solution and a way through the issues. Ultimately, that is where we want to be. The work that I have set out today is important because it will enable us to do that.

Ideally, we would want to commit to multi-annual funding agreements, but I am not in that position today because I do not have any certainty. However, going forward, we want to make sure that we are providing as much certainty and clarity to the industry as possible. Let us face it: if we were still members of the EU, we would have had a seven-year period in which we could plan for the future and what the schemes would look like. When we had that, everybody knew what they were going to get over that period and it was all set out. We are in a very different state of affairs at the moment, so it is not possible for me to say what funding is going to look like or to make those commitments, because I do not have that information and I have not been given any of that certainty.

Precisely because it gives us the flexibility to adapt the schemes and develop them in a way in which we think will deliver against the objectives that we have set out. There have been calls for there to be a rebasing of LFASS. We want to continue with support of that type because it is so important for our farmers and crofters in the most rural parts of Scotland. We must design the schemes with farmers and crofters and develop a support system that is going to work. One of the schemes that has ultimately delivered on its objectives—I am sure that my officials will correct me if I am wrong—is the agri-environment climate scheme. We could potentially look at what some of the measures might look like, which could form part of a potential enhanced conditionality in the tier 2 measures. It is about how we design those schemes, but, ultimately, we need to design them with the people who are most impacted by them.

A number of targets are listed elsewhere, particularly in relation to emissions reduction, and we know that that is also being considered through the natural environment bill. For me, it is not necessarily about introducing new targets. What will be critical, as I have outlined in previous responses, is the monitoring and evaluation of targets. We already have statutory targets to meet, so it is about how we set out the pathway to achieving them.

You are right that the status quo exists until such time as we make transitions through the route map, as we have set out. We do not want any cliff edges in relation to support. We are not intending to surprise anybody with anything that comes forward. What is important is that we have the powers under the framework to enable us to consider such issues.

I do not know whether John Kerr wants to say anything else on that.

I understand the committee’s concern about that. That is why we are taking an overall framework approach to the powers that we are taking. Ultimately, we need to have those powers, otherwise we would automatically rule out being able to do, discuss or take forward a lot of things. That speaks to the changes that we are looking to introduce. We have talked a lot about the route map and setting out some of the information.

I hope that I have been able to emphasise and illustrate throughout the meeting the importance of co-development—working with our farmers and crofters—in developing all of this. It is not in our interests or in the interests of the wider industry for there to be any surprises or cliff edges. We are categorically committed to not providing that for our farmers and crofters. Ultimately, as I have set out, we want to design the system with them and to see what mechanism will work best.

We will take seriously any recommendations that the committee makes in that regard, but we have also had correspondence with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee about the powers that we are taking and the instruments that we are looking to use in relation to them. We have touched on a couple of areas in which that committee had recommendations, including moving from the negative to the affirmative procedure or reconsidering one of the other instruments, but the committee was broadly content with the responses that we gave in relation to the powers there. As it stands, I am content with where we are on the basis of what the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has expressed to us.

However, the particular power that you have referred to involves a specific power for a very specific purpose. We responded to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee on that issue. In fact, the power is similar to another power that was taken in, I think, the Environmental Protection Act 1990; Andy Crawley might have more information on that. We thought that, because the proposed power was broadly similar to the power in the 1990 act that is also subject to the negative procedure, it could be done in the same way. The proposed power in the bill is not as broad as the power in the 1990 act and is for a very particular purpose.