Chamber and committees

I share the committee’s concerns that the 2030 date will have the effect of retaining until 2030 the current rate of payments, which was set in 2018. We just have to take it on your good word that there will be further statutory instruments, over which we, as a committee or as a Parliament, have no control. Therefore, unless the Government is minded to do otherwise, we could see the current rate of payments lasting until 2030 through another Government, potentially, and through multiple ministers. We are expected to put that into law today. Is there any reason why that date could not be 2025 or 2026? What is the reason for pushing it to 2030?

To who?

One of our biggest concerns about the new agriculture act was the lack of scrutiny. We all accepted that a framework bill was the way forward, to allow policy to be fleet of foot in order to address issues that come up. One of the biggest concerns was about the situation in which Parliament would lack the ability to scrutinise this type of thing. Given Parliament’s desire to be involved, I do not understand why you would see potentially revisiting such a policy in a year’s time—or six months’ time or two years’ time—as an issue. That is exactly what Parliament wants to do—we want to scrutinise it.

Today, we are expected to pass a regulation that would allow the Government to pay the current rate up to 2030. That is very restrictive; we would then rely on the Government to introduce further secondary legislation to address that. That appears to be the committee’s view, at the moment.

There is another important consideration. Minister, what your views are on rebasing payments?

This discussion sounds a bit similar to the one that we had on the previous regulations. Minister, have you done any assessment of the impact on smaller abattoirs or processors?

What are those core or key priorities within the marine directorate?

Is there still a requirement to test for some residues? Does there need to be a review of that? There might have been an issue with some antibiotics, chemicals and pesticides in the past—I am thinking of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, or other things for which there needed to be testing—but is there scope for reviewing what residues need to be tested for to ensure public safety? That might result in a reduction in costs.

You touched on inshore fisheries, and we have had evidence from a number of stakeholders on them. Elspeth Macdonald, from the Scottish Fishermen’s Association, said that

“the directorate is spinning many, many plates and it looks to us as if the resource ... is being spread too thinly over too many things”,

and that

“We have many data gaps and poor information in relation to many of our inshore fisheries compared with some of the other fisheries.”

Similarly, Elaine Whyte, from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, said:

“We feel that we have less contact with staff and that staff have more pressure on them. Going back 10 years ago, I would make a phone call to a member of staff to sort an issue, but that is far more difficult now.”

We know that previous budget documents have stated that an increase in marine directorate has been directed towards net zero, biodiversity and the expansion of offshore renewables. Is that the reason why we are hearing concerns relating to other fisheries policy areas? Has there been a negative impact on the delivery of fisheries policy objectives because of the focus on areas other than the fishing industry?

We move on to fisheries science.

That concerns the overall budget, but you state that the committee will

“be aware that the Bew review recommendations have not been fully implemented.”

I am not aware of that, and I am asking you which recommendations have not been implemented.

Another thing that raises questions relates to ring-fenced funding. The first table in your letter suggests that ring-fenced money and Bew review money are completely separate. Is the Bew review money not ring fenced? Is it not a conditional payment from the UK Treasury that is to be used for agriculture?