Chamber and committees

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.

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.

We 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.

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.

We would welcome more funding from the UK Government, but we should—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.