Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 3, 2021

Official Report 735KB pdf

---

Agriculture and Fisheries (Update)

Good morning, and welcome to the eighth meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in 2021. I ask everyone to make sure that their mobile phones are on silent. This meeting will be conducted in virtual format. We have received apologies from Maureen Watt, the deputy convener. Should anything happen to my reception, it has been agreed that Stewart Stevenson will stand in. Christine Grahame is attending as Maureen Watt’s substitute.

I would like to allow some declarations of interest prior to hearing the update from the minister. I will start that off by saying that I declare that I am a member of a family farming partnership in Moray and I have a wild salmon fisheries interest in Speyside.

Likewise, I declare an interest in a farming partnership in Aberdeenshire.

I am the joint owner of a very small registered agricultural holding, from which I derive no income.

I am also a partner in a farming business.

In relation to later questions, I declare that I own properties in a crofting township in the Outer Hebrides. However, I derive no income from those properties.

Agenda item 1 is agriculture and fisheries. I welcome, from the Scottish Government, Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism; John Kerr, head of agricultural policy division; George Burgess, deputy director, food and drink; and Jane MacPherson, team leader, catching policy and future fisheries management. Cabinet secretary, I invite you to make a brief opening statement.

Good morning, and thanks for this invitation to address you today with an update on the agriculture and rural economy portfolio. Before I do so, I want to specifically highlight the following areas.

First, Scotland’s forestry sector is a positive area of the rural economy, not only because, throughout the pandemic, the forestry sector has continued to provide essential wood and timber products, but due to the tremendous successes that have been achieved over the past five years. We have fully completed the devolution of forestry, improving accountability and performance. We have doubled our woodland creation and we have also doubled the output of Scotland’s tree nurseries. Large companies have invested more than £140 million of private capital into the sector. We have also helped more than 100 crofters to improve their land with trees. Forestry is a key growth area for the future in rural Scotland and I am happy to expand on that later.

I want to take this opportunity, to pay tribute to everybody working in the sector, both public and private, who are out there right now, working hard to deliver our planting targets. Despite this year of adversity, with Covid-19 and Brexit and heavy and persistent snow at the beginning of 2021, I am pleased this morning to be able to inform the committee that we are on track to meet our target of 12,000 hectares of new woodland. There are, in fact, 13,000 hectares of projects approved for this financial year and over 6,000 hectares for the following year. The pipeline remains strong and that truly is a remarkable achievement.

Turning to fisheries, as we implement our future fisheries management strategy, we will consider the scope of the United Kingdom Fisheries Act 2020 alongside other legislation and substantive vessel licensing powers already in place to determine whether additional legislation may be required to support sustainable and responsible fishing management, including for the inshore sector. We will, of course, work in partnership with our stakeholders to do that.

Finally, on frameworks, currently, seven frameworks that are in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s remit are operating at official level on an interim basis across the UK. An additional framework on organic farming is currently undergoing the provisional approval process. In conclusion, I expect these frameworks to be developed further in the coming months and to be formally scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament from September onwards, before they are finalised and approved by all four Administrations.

Thank you for that opening statement. We have a series of questions—actually, quite a lot of questions. As I always implore, short questions and short answers go well together. Colin Smyth will start off.

Good morning. The Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020 is now in statute. Can you tell us how that legislation has so far been used to simplify or improve the operation of common agricultural policy legislation and say what plans the Government has to make further changes in the short term? Is there, for example, any sign of the pilot schemes that are now allowed under the legislation?

We have put those powers to good use, as we had planned for prior to the legislation. There are a number of ways that we have done that, Mr Smyth. For example, we have removed the crop diversification requirement from the greening rules from 2021. We have made improvements to inspections for 2021 by refocusing resources towards improving compliance, support and better targeting of inspections. We have also made improvements to the penalty regime, which I think that many people, certainly myself, felt involved disproportionate penalties. We have reinstated less favoured area support scheme payments to 100 per cent for the scheme year 2021, which was a popular move.

To the second question, along with NatureScot, we are proceeding with pilots at the moment—a forestry pilot is under way, for example. We are also working with farmer-led groups, which I will park, because it might be the subject of substantive questions later.

A great deal of progress has been made. In summary, all of those things—inspections, penalties, the removal of the crop rule—are things that the farming community was asking for for quite a long time.

You are correct to say that the farmer-led groups will be part of the questions later. In fact, my colleague is about to ask questions on that.

To open that discussion, looking at future policy, it is more than two years since Parliament agreed to establish what subsequently became the farming and food production future policy group. The Scottish Government website still says that the remit is to make recommendations for future policy development

“in the course of 2020”.

We have not seen any of those recommendations yet, but you have obviously seen a draft from the group. What is your response to what it is proposing, and when are we likely to see exactly what that particular group is proposing? The clock is ticking towards 2024 and I do not think that there is a farming environment stakeholder anywhere happy with the progress from the Government in setting out future policy.

I do not agree with the last statement, but in response to the main question, this group was established, quite rightly, as an independent group. In other words, it was not a Scottish Government advisory group. It was a group that was set up precisely to conform with the exact requirements as set out in a parliamentary motion and amendment, which was, as I recall, lodged by Mr Rumbles. Therefore, I think that it is important to make the point that this is an independent group and it would be quite wrong for me to instruct it.

Perhaps because of Covid and Brexit, the group has not finished its work or reached its conclusions, but I do not think that it is for me to order it to do so. It is, by definition, an independent group. It also represents various strands of stakeholders and so on. It was not for me to exert any pressure with regard to the appearance of individual members of the group in respect of stakeholders. It is up to the group to determine whether or not it is able to report.

In the meantime, I wish to stress that we have our climate change plan and we have our farmer-led groups in place. The beef suckler climate report by Jim Walker and Claire Simonetta was published at the end of October last year. I think that we are making substantial progress now that Brexit has clarified some aspects and we are able to see beyond Brexit to some extent. I can answer questions on the progress that we are making in that regard, if the committee so wishes.

Colin Smyth, do you want to push on that? I am happy to bring in Mike Rumbles.

I would like to follow up on that. What was it from the farming and food production future policy group’s draft that prompted you to then go off and set up a range of other farming groups?

I have always believed that the Scottish Government needed to take forward its initiatives to tackle climate change and to look beyond Brexit. I have made no secret of that. Indeed, the pledge for farmer-led groups was contained in our programme for government. It has been there for members to quiz me on and to raise questions about for a considerable length of time.

I also think that there is a more important question, and this is very important to understand. We will be asking farmers, crofters and land managers to change considerably the way that they farm and to farm ever more sustainably to tackle our ambitious, challenging climate change targets. I was determined to make sure that the ways in which change was required were discussed and brought forward by farmers themselves. I feared that, if politicians, academics and civil servants were to impose a top-down set of policies, they might well be resisted. Therefore, to get buy-in for what we must do to tackle climate change, I believe that asking farmers themselves to take and share responsibility for policy development was the only practical way to do that. Quite rightly, in my opinion, farmers are very resistant to being told what to do by people outwith their farm who do not know their land as they do.

Secondly, who best to persuade farmers and crofters to change than other farmers and crofters? I have spent 13 years in Government, and I have always been of the view that we should work on a team Scotland basis, and that applies to policy formulation. In this case, I have to say that the work that farmer-led groups are doing is exemplary. I have been in close contact with many of the leaders of the groups and the progress that they are making is significant. I hope that we will have some reports before purdah, and we will certainly have them in the spring. I believe that proceeding in this way, putting farmers in charge of their destiny, is the only way—a sine qua non, if you like—of making the progress that we all want to see in tackling climate change.

So, you have sidelined the farming and food production future policy group because you did not like the draft and you have set up other groups. Presumably, you could have set up those groups at the very start, but you waited until you had seen a draft from the future policy group. Is that not the case?

No, that is not the case. I set up the process of farmer-led groups some considerable time ago. To say that I have sidelined the report is completely and utterly wrong. It is an independent report and it is completely inappropriate that I should seek to direct or instruct that because it is an independent report. Nobody has sidelined it. If it is able to produce the report before purdah, we will, of course, study it carefully. If that does not happen, we have our clear plan in place. I referred to the climate change plan; Mr Smyth did not mention that. That sets out a number of things that we have to do. My job then was to turn that into an action plan, and that is exactly what I am doing.

I have questions on the climate change plan, cabinet secretary, but I know that other members want to come in on this issue first before I ask them.

09:15  

Cabinet secretary, I absolutely agree that getting buy-in from the farming community is very important, but you have to recognise that farmers have been crying out for a plan for, I would argue, at least the past two years. NFU Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates and farmers themselves are ready for change and accept that change is coming. Do you not accept that you are moving far too slowly? The industry thinks that you are—you are the only person who does not think that. If we, as an industry, are to meet the climate change targets by 2030, we need a plan before 2024. Do you not accept that the industry is correct and you are wrong, and that you are far too slow in bringing forward the route map that the industry desperately needs?

With respect, I do not accept any of that at all. In fact, I have had scarcely any letters to that effect from farmers over the past three years. If there were a clamour, I would have been inundated with correspondence to that effect, but I have not; there has been nary an email.

What farmers have wanted is stability and certainty, and confidence that their payments—which includes a payment to you—are received on time. We have fixed that—we have sorted it. I said that I would fix it in 2016, and not only have we fixed it but Scottish farmers have received their pillar 1 payments via what are effectively de facto advance payments, in the form of loans, two or three months earlier than anywhere else in the UK. I think that what farmers wanted is for us to do our job, and we have done that job by making payments.

I led and won the convergence campaign, which has given a big boost to farmers throughout the country, particularly in the less productive areas, which are the reason why we got the convergence moneys in the first place.

I also think that the enthusiasm of the farmers who are participating in the farmer-led groups is manifest and palpable. It is a good thing. I genuinely hope that other parties will support that as the modus operandi for the way ahead.

I point to the work that I have done, which I referred to in answering Mr Smyth’s question, on alleviating penalties, reducing inspections, abolishing the crop diversification rule and confirming that LFASS will revert to 100 per cent for next year. Incidentally, it would be my hope that we would keep LFASS at that level until 2024, and the hill farming, upland and crofting group is also tasked with giving us advice about an LFASS replacement. All those pieces of work are the practical things that count for farmers.

The narrative that the Conservatives in Scotland have been concocting is genuinely not based on the facts as far as I can see and, therefore, it is almost irrelevant. On the contrary, now that Brexit is upon us, rightly or wrongly, now is the time to make progress.

We are not waiting until 2024 for a new system. I believe that we will—

Cabinet secretary—

Peter Chapman asked several questions, convener; I am just answering them—

I have given you a lot of leeway in that answer. I will try, because there are so many questions, to focus you in. I will bring in Jamie Halcro Johnston, and then I will go to Richard Lyle.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. In response to your answer to Peter Chapman, at AgriScot in early November, Andrew McCormick, the then NFUS president, said:

“Where is the policy? Where is the road map? All the information you need is sitting waiting on Scottish Government desks to be pulled together. Stop dithering and start delivering.”

Is that not the NFUS clamouring for answers on future rural policies?

You picked one phrase from Andrew McCormick’s speech, if that was what he actually said at the time—I cannot recall the exact words. We work very closely, and quite rightly so, with the NFUS. Martin Kennedy is the co-chair of the hill farming, upland and crofting group, along with Joyce Campbell. As I understand it, he and his colleagues in the NFUS, whose board I will meet pre-purdah, are largely signed up to the process of farmer-led groups.

No one else has mentioned this thus far, but the UK Government has unilaterally reduced our budget to 2025 by £170 million. It is very difficult to make a plan until you know what your budget is. At the moment, our budget has been reduced by £170 million, and the budgets for Wales and Northern Ireland have also been reduced. I am still waiting to know whether you, as the Conservatives’ spokesman, will join me in campaigning for that cut to be reversed. That would certainly help us deliver any plan for the future.

Richard Lyle has some questions on forestry.

Can I move on to a positive issue now, cabinet secretary? I welcome your announcement on new planting. As you know, during my time in Parliament I have continually advocated for more tree planting. My thanks go to forestry personnel for what they have done. Instead of 12,000 hectares, you will now plant 13,000. That is 80 per cent of UK planting. What discussions are you having with other nations to increase their planting, which is abysmal in comparison with planting in Scotland?

Cabinet secretary, for the avoidance of doubt, could you clarify that what Richard Lyle has said is correct and that you will be planting 13,000 hectares this year?

I will repeat what I said earlier, convener, because I made it very clear. I said that 13,000 hectares of projects have been approved for this financial year, so we are on track to meet our target of 12,000. The audited figures will be available later in the year, but I thought it correct to inform the committee that we are on track to meet our target. We always aim a bit over the actual target because there is always an element of slippage. This year—my goodness—we have seen Brexit and Covid, and, as you know, there has been persistent snow during the planting season. We are on track to meet our target. I want to be absolutely precise about that.

As I recall, our target is twice the rate of total new plantings that applied back in 2015-16, so I think that it is correct to pay tribute to everybody involved in forestry. Mr Lyle is absolutely correct. We aim to further increase that to 18,000 hectares. Indeed, some have argued that we can go further, and I think that we have the capacity and the land mass asset in Scotland to go further.

It is very important that we take farmers and crofters with us. We are setting out our intention to deliver further schemes, building on the success that we have seen. Many schemes already involve farms and smaller land owners.

On the question about other jurisdictions, plainly England and Wales are, by and large, more densely populated than Scotland and do not quite have the capacity to do what we do. Zac Goldsmith, the UK minister, sought my advice—he thought that performance in Scotland was excellent. I was very pleased that he was honest enough to recognise that we have made substantial progress.

Alongside the planting sector, the sawmill panel products sector is also very important to the Scottish economy as an area of real potential growth in the future.

I will stop there, because I see that you want to make progress, convener.

I do. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I will briefly go back to Colin Smyth because I think that he wanted to ask a question. I will then go to Emma Harper. I remind members that I am watching the chat box carefully to try to bring people in at the right time. Please watch to see where I will bring you in, to try to make this as seamless as possible.

Obviously, the climate change plan is important. I mentioned that I had a question when the cabinet secretary mentioned it. There has been unanimous criticism of the Scottish Government’s decision to cut the agri-environment climate scheme by 20 per cent—I think that almost all stakeholders have criticised that move. How will the gap left by that cut be filled in the short term, before we move to a new post-2024 policy?

I do not really accept the characterisation of “unanimous”. However, I point to the £170 million cut. I hope that the Labour Party supports my campaign to reverse that cut.

A third of the CAP schemes, including greening, the agri-environment climate scheme, the beef efficiency scheme and the forestry grant scheme, provide funding in that area. We have also provided funding for the agri-transformation programme. We have prioritised agri-environment support in the face of significant cuts. As it stands, we stand to lose £170 million over the period. The AECS was reopened for a targeted range of options in January 2021. Broadly speaking, it supports the same range of land, under “stewardship”.

I ask Mr Smyth again whether Scotland will campaign as one to get the money that we were promised pre-Brexit by the Brexiteers—we were promised that the funding would be at least matched post-Brexit. We need to get that money back. I will be arguing very forcibly in the coming weeks and months that that is a major issue for Scotland. I hope that we can have a united campaign like the one that that, latterly, we had on the convergence money, which led to the success of that campaign.

The NFUS, Scottish Environment LINK and many others have criticised the cut. If the criticism has not been unanimous, can you tell us of any organisation or individual who supports your decision?

I think that there was fairly widespread recognition that the problems that we face meant that the decisions that we took were practical and effective. Certainly, I understand that NatureScot has welcomed the commitment to have a further round of AECS. There was also a welcome for our carrying over of funding from the previous round to continue spending. We will continue the AECS spending until 2025. To categorise the opposition as total and monolithic is somewhat overegging the cake.

I go back to my point: if we had not had a £170 million cut foisted on us—with no consultation, I may add—we could have used some of that funding to do even more. If the other parties want to support me, that would do nothing other than help me—and the Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland, which are making precisely the same case—win that campaign.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Colin Smyth, the answer to your question is that NatureScot is the only one.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. This might be the fourth week in a row that we have seen you at the committee.

I have a quick question about the common frameworks. We received a copy of a letter from Mike Russell, the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs, said that many of the common frameworks would be scrutinised in September 2021, in the next parliamentary session. Do you have any reflections on the common frameworks process, given that elements of the frameworks have been implemented already through primary and secondary legislation? I know that many of the frameworks are difficult and are taking a lot of work—we have seen that on the Health and Sport Committee as well.

The frameworks are developed to agree joint ways of working between the four Governments in policy areas where there is a devolved intersect. They have been designed to manage divergence—in other words, to recognise that the devolved Administrations can take their own decisions in areas such as agriculture and fisheries. The provisional frameworks are, as Emma Harper says, in operation at official level on an interim basis. All legislatures will have the opportunity to scrutinise them before they are finalised. I think that I made that point in my opening remarks. As a matter of form, it is important that we are accountable to Parliament, as is the UK Government, through the Scottish Government.

My own reflection is that a framework is one thing, but unless we are properly consulted before decisions are taken, the frameworks are a sham. We were not consulted about the £170 million cut or the absurd concessions that were made on fisheries in the Brexit negotiations. We were not consulted about major things, including the UK’s various U-turns in the sad history of the impacts on seafood following Brexit. Without proper consultation—they say that it will happen, but it very rarely does—the frameworks are nothing but words on a page.

We are all very aware of the issues and challenges that face some of our exporters and, as you mentioned, the fisheries sector has had particular issues since the end of the transition period. What progress has been made in resolving some of those export challenges for food producers more generally? What is the outcome of the initial discussions with the Scottish seafood exports task force?

09:30  

Mr Halcro Johnston refers to an extremely serious turn of events, which is that, since Brexit, the seafood sector in particular as well as the whole agriculture sector have been very adversely affected. In particular, the new additional bureaucratic processes that have been introduced have affected the seafood sector most obviously, with devastating consequences.

Seed potatoes can no longer be exported. I also heard yesterday—I think that the story is being publicised by the Farmers Guardian—that a carrot exporter to Northern Ireland has lost business because his customer in Northern Ireland said that the additional paperwork means that the business is no longer worth while. There have also been problems with exports of certain meat products to Northern Ireland.

Mr Halcro Johnston asks what progress has been made on those issues. We are working hard. Food Standards Scotland, Scottish Government officials—including Mr Burgess, who is present—and the staff at the three hubs that were set up in Scotland to help address the coming maelstrom of bureaucratic impasse have all been working around the clock. I am very proud of the huge efforts that have been made. Ian McWatt of FSS has really got this by the scruff of the neck.

The complexity of export health certificates, the interaction with customs documentation, and the practical difficulties of importation and agency, coupled with the logistical issues of transportation during a Covid pandemic, have created very serious problems, as I think that everybody has said.

The task force that was set up is working to try to address some of the issues, and we are working constructively on the process. For example, I receive daily reports about the length of time that it takes to process EHCs. Progress has been made, but I am afraid that one of the worries is still that smaller exporters, particularly those who use groupage consignment, are finding that the costs of the process are making the continuance of trade unprofitable. I genuinely fear that that is a real worry. I have mentioned carrots; I could mention other examples, including of small shellfish traders simply deciding to discontinue exporting because their former profit margin has been more than used up by the cost of the Brexit bureaucracy.

Thanks very much for that answer.

I know that in a previous discussion—I am trying to remember whether it was at this committee or at the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, which I also sit on—someone suggested that a capped fee for smaller producers would help with some of the issues around those certificates. I do not know whether that has been considered.

I will move on. The Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee heard evidence from the chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs, David McAllister MEP. He offered to help with problems that arise on the European Union side. It has been acknowledged that there have some inconsistencies in border checks by different EU nations.

What interaction or engagement has the Scottish Government had with the Commission or the European Parliament in addressing some of the issues? I am thinking of ridiculous issues such as the wrong-coloured ink being used or customs officials in certain EU countries simply not knowing, or not following, what is quite clearly standard EU law.

Officials in our Brussels office are in daily contact with their counterparts; there is also informal discussion. As Mr Halcro Johnston and the committee know, the formal legal responsibility—indeed, the duty—rests with the UK to make progress with the Commission. These are largely operational problems, and they result because—we repeatedly warned both Mr Eustice and Mr Gove about this—the imposition of a brand-new bureaucratic system was bound to lead to tears. James Withers of Scotland Food & Drink and all, or virtually all, the Scottish stakeholders said on 1 November that a six-month period of grace was needed, during which the old system would apply while people learned to adapt to a new system before it came into formal effect. The UK never asked for grace period; it says that it was not available, but it never actually asked for it.

I recognise the politics of the situation.

No—that is not about the politics; it is about being pragmatic.

I am raising areas where EU nations are not following the EU’s import procedures. Are you suggesting that the Scottish Government cannot help with or work on that because it is a UK issue, or can the Scottish Government help with some it?

We use our connections to try to make progress, but we are where we are because of Brexit. For example, on the seed potato issue, through Professor Saddler and other officials with whom I work extremely closely, we tried to remove the ban on seed potatoes. No stone has been left unturned, including appropriate communication with the European representative bodies to ensure that representations were made not just to the Commission but to individual countries that have trade with us on seed potatoes. That is just one example where we have gone out of our way and where no stone has been left unturned.

I am afraid that my point is very simple and factual. We are where we are because of Brexit and because of the way that the UK Government chose to do Brexit, despite warnings that it would lead to the difficulties we have seen. Brexiteers wanted to scrap red tape but, ironically, Brexit has led to red tape instead.

We are just going over old ground here. The question was about the practical work that the Scottish Government could do in areas where even the EU accepts that its rules are perhaps not being followed.

I will move on quickly to an issue around import checks on goods coming into Scotland. At a recent meeting of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, we had Mark Thomson from Dumfries and Galloway Council talking about Cairnryan, which is looking for port health authority status. He raised a concern about the funding needed to get that status. When I asked him who would pay if the Scottish Government did not provide additional funding, his answer was not that it would necessarily be the council; it was that it might not be possible to provide those services at Cairnryan.

I know that Joan McAlpine, as the convener of that committee, has written to Mike Russell about the issue. Can you give us an update on Scottish Government support for Dumfries and Galloway Council to get port health authority status? If it does not get that funding, what would be the impact of not having that status at Cairnryan?

It is essential that, post-Brexit, Cairnryan should be a border control post because, if it does not have that status, it will possibly gradually wither on the vine in terms of trade, as traders will use other border posts. Even though the proportion of goods imported and exported that will be subject to the border controls may be small, the worry is that the traders will choose elsewhere because of administrative convenience.

I have been arguing over the past year prior to Brexit that we must get a border control post. Mr Halcro Johnston is saying that we should pay for it, but customs is a reserved issue. Border control posts are within the gift of the UK. The operation of the sanitary and phytosanitary checks is for us, and they involve extra cost only because of Brexit, but let us be clear that the responsibility for border controls is a reserved matter. I have repeatedly asked Michael Gove whether the UK Government will pay for that, and he has accepted that the UK should pay, so why on earth are the Scottish Tories asking the Scottish Government to pay for something that is palpably for the UK? I do not understand.

My colleagues in the transport section are dealing with the issue day to day in respect of discussions with local authorities, so that is not in my purview. The bigger question is who pays, and it should be the London Government.

To clarify, I was not asking about border controls; I was asking about port health authority status, which obviously involves services delivered by the local council, and it is asking the Scottish Government for support with that. That is why I asked you the question. I appreciate that it is not your sector, but have you had discussions with Mike Russell about the issue? Can you give an update on whether that support will be forthcoming? Dumfries and Galloway Council has suggested that, if it does not have the additional funding—obviously the Scottish Government has been provided with £200 million for Brexit preparations—it might not be able to provide that service. Of course, that would have real implications for Scotland and for the sectors that are under your control in relation to feed and other food products.

I have, of course, had extensive discussions with Mike Russell, but it is not Mike Russell who is dealing with local authorities. He does not have that ministerial responsibility.

I would like to bring in George Burgess, who might be able to add a bit more on that. We fully accept our responsibilities for sanitary and phytosanitary checks. We went to great lengths in advance of the new arrangements coming into place to make sure that funding was available for the recruitment of individuals involved. Moreover, although it is not in my specific purview and responsibility, we have nonetheless been working with all relevant local authorities to that end.

Given that Mr Halcro Johnston has asked for a bit more detail, perhaps my officials can help, with your permission, convener.

No, cabinet secretary. I would love to bring in George Burgess, but I am struggling for time because of the length of the questions and answers. I want to bring in Christine Grahame with a question.

Cabinet secretary, with the greatest respect, please do not shake your head. I am trying to run the meeting so that everyone gets a chance to ask questions. Christine Grahame would like to ask some questions, and if it is appropriate to bring in George Burgess after that, we will do that.

Like Jamie Halcro Johnston, I am a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, which is handy for me in substituting in this committee. My question is on the fisheries and farming industries and what can be done now that we are out of the European Union. The evidence on that is startling. Jimmy Buchan, chief executive of the Scottish Seafood Association, said on Brexit:

“these are not minor impediments to trade. The industry in Scotland has basically ground to a halt and businesses that employ hundreds of people in communities around our coastline are losing money.”

Elspeth Macdonald of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation said:

“The UK Government has not secured a good deal on fishing, so that benefit has not been delivered.”

Jimmy Buchan said:

“In my opinion, we have ended up with the worst of the worst of the worst.”—[Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committeee, 11 February 2021; c 53, 52.]

Charlie Adam of NFU Scotland said:

“We are only at about 25 per cent”—

Christine—

I am coming to the question.

Sorry, Christine but, with the greatest respect, I have asked for short questions and answers. If I asked a question of that length in the chamber, I am sure that the Presiding Officer would call me to account. I am calling you to account and asking you to ask a short question.

That particular one is my question. With respect, I have listened to the length of other contributions from other members.

All those people say that there are serious structural issues. What can the Scottish Government do if there are serious structural issues?

My second question is on customs. The Road Haulage Association—I know that the UK Government refuted this, as it is perfectly entitled to do—said that we are 50,000 customs officers short, which is causing huge issues and delays at ports and distribution centres. Will the cabinet secretary comment on that?

Briefly, cabinet secretary, please.

I will answer briefly, and then I would be grateful if Mr Burgess could add something, as that would be helpful.

My job is to try to make the best of things and to work with Jimmy Buchan and Elspeth Macdonald. I meet them frequently, and I could go into five or six things that we are trying to implement. I stress that, although Brexit has been a complete disaster for fisheries, we are nonetheless trying to make the best of it. That is my approach. It is absolutely essential that we get back our fisheries sector that is so important to Scotland.

I will give up the rest of my time to Mr Burgess.

As you have kept to a short answer, I am happy to bring in George Burgess briefly.

09:45  

On the matter of the border control post, the draft development order was published last week. My colleagues are working with the local authority and other stakeholders to ensure that a border control post can be established. We expect that we will have to meet at least part of the bill for that.

On Mr Halcro Johnston’s question about engagement with European authorities, we are having regular dialogue with the French authorities, given that so much of our trade goes through the French ports. That is helping to resolve the practical issues, with things such as ink colour, stamps and all the rest of it.

We have also funded two posts in Seafood Scotland working in Calais to help to resolve very practical problems at that end and speed up the flow of goods.

Christine Grahame wants to ask a couple more questions. I encourage her to be brief, please.

I will certainly take my lead from you, convener.

What impact has the trade and co-operation agreement had on the development of policy and regulation for agriculture and land management, in relation to issues such as the level playing field, which I was leading up to in my previous question?

The effects of the TCA, including its interaction with other bits of legislation such as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, will continue to unravel. One potential example that could have significant consequences would be the effect on subsidy control in the UK. Most but not all agricultural subsidies—support payments, as I prefer to call them—are exempt from the subsidy control provisions of the TCA and are covered by the World Trade Organization.

On 3 February, the UK Government released a consultation on those areas, which asks whether the subsidy should be subject to the new regime, despite being exempt in the TCA. There are many potential implications, although it is early days yet to be categoric about it.

Following the passage of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, does the Government intend to keep pace with the EU CAP regulations as those change ahead of the next CAP period?

We generally favour alignment with the EU because, the more we are aligned with the EU, the less risk there is of losing further trade, such as the export of seed potatoes. The reason why seed potatoes are banned from export and we have lost that market as result of Brexit is because the UK Government refused to dynamically align and accept that it would abide by EU legislation. That is just one example.

The EU CAP proposals are to ensure a fair income to farmers, to increase competitiveness and to rebalance the power in the food chain, and there are objectives on climate change, environmental care and vibrant rural areas. We share those EU objectives, so we think that, broadly speaking, we should do that.

As a supplementary question, as a member of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, I understand the loss of the seed potato export market. Do you have a figure for the value of that?

The seed potato market for Scotland as a whole is worth hundreds of millions of pounds. Markets such as Egypt are extremely valuable. I do not have the precise figures in front of me, but I will revert to the committee with them. We are talking about millions of pounds, and that means that other markets will have to be found. Decisions are being made right now by seed potato growers not to grow for that market any longer. That is tragic, because our seed potatoes are regarded as the best in the world. We have lost the market, purely because of bureaucracy and the way in which the UK Government has chosen to implement Brexit. It could have avoided the loss of the market if it had wanted to, but it was not important enough to merit even a discussion in the negotiations.

Stewart Stevenson has the next questions.

I will try to shorten the questions, convener. I make the observation that, in my constituency alone, seed potatoes are worth more than £10 million a year, but I will pass on that.

I have a question on fisheries. A colleague will deal with the committees and management strategy; I simply want to ask how the negotiations on total allowable catch with the EU and other independent coastal states are going. In particular, what role does the Scottish Government have in those negotiations? Of course, our being involved will not only benefit Scotland; because of the expertise here, it will benefit the rest of the UK.

As Mr Stevenson will know, the negotiations are on-going. I have to say that Brexit has exacerbated the complexities and difficulties in the negotiations. I do not want to go into too much detail here, as that would not necessarily be appropriate.

In general, no one would doubt that Brexit has made the negotiations more difficult. There is a particular loss that is important in practical terms, which is to do with swaps. Under the common fisheries policy, after the deals were done in the Brussels negotiations and bilaterals, producer organisations could make swaps to ameliorate the deal. They could make practical arrangements to swap quota with others in other countries and other waters. That was a practical and useful method, but it now cannot be done at the local level; it can be done only through an intergovernmental process. That is a massive loss. In addition, the actual details of the quota that will be available are such that, in some areas, we will be worse off than beforehand. Overall, the upshot is that it is more difficult.

At some point, convener, I would like to bring in officials to supplement any answers that I have given, just in case there are other points that it would be useful to bring to the committee’s attention, so I will stop there.

One of my colleagues might want to ask a little more about swaps, although I suspect that you may have answered some of the questions.

You did not speak to me about the Scottish—

Stewart, I am sorry, but can I just stop you there? I do not know whether it is me or somebody else, but the cabinet secretary seems to have frozen. Is that me or you?

I do not think that I have frozen, convener.

Okay. Sorry, Stewart—keep going.

I was just going to say that it would be helpful if we heard how the Scottish Government, either at official or ministerial level, is involved.

My final question on the issue is about the specialised committee on fisheries that relates to the governance of the trade and co-operation agreement. How are we involved in that?

The immediate priority is the annual negotiations and the setting of TACs to allow the quotas for 2021 to be set and to give the industry the factual certainty that it needs to operate and manage its fishing opportunities for the remainder of the year. Given the protracted annual negotiation with the EU, the policy work to implement the elements of the TCA has not started yet in earnest. We want Marine Scotland to be fully engaged in the setting up of the specialised committee, particularly given our responsibility for fisheries management and expertise in quota management and the annual negotiations.

I am struggling with my internet. I cannot quite work out whether it is me or other people. I will turn off my camera until I can resolve it. Perhaps the information technology staff could help me.

Anyway, Peter Chapman has the next questions.

My question is on international quota swaps. You addressed that to an extent with Stewart Stevenson, cabinet secretary. I realise that it is now a much more difficult process—as you rightly said, it is an intergovernmental process. That does not mean that we do not try to start the process. Has any progress been made in allowing the international quota swaps to continue, which I would hope will be soon? Where are we with that process?

I will perhaps bring in Jane MacPherson to answer the technical question, but I understand that the process really only kicks in after the deal is done, and the deal has not been done, so it is premature to talk about that. We will obviously try to make anything work but, as I think Mr Chapman knows, the guys with the expertise are in the producers organisations. In effect, they will not be able to do what they used to do. I am not involved with the issue, but that is my understanding.

Maybe I could pass to Jane MacPherson to give a more technical answer to Mr Chapman’s question, which is a reasonable question to ask.

The cabinet secretary is completely right that the in-year mechanism is yet to be established through the TCA special committee for fisheries, mainly because of that annual negotiation process. For us, it is more important to focus on the bilateral negotiations, as that is where the potential is for this in-year process. We do not want to get into the process of talking about the negotiation swaps until the bilateral negotiations have concluded. The cabinet secretary is right about the process. It is about concluding the bilaterals and then moving on to thinking about how the specialised committee will work.

Before we go any further, because of the appalling internet that I have, I will have to drop off and reconnect. I will hand over the meeting to Stewart Stevenson to convene in my absence while I reconnect. I am sorry, but broadband does not really work in the Highlands. I will reconnect.

I have one more question, Stewart.

I was just going to say that I thought that you had not finished.

Cabinet secretary, based on the expectation that we will receive extra quota of fish from our waters in the future, have you given any thought to how additional quota will be allocated to the inshore fleet? Has that been discussed? What are your thoughts on that?

My thoughts are that the deal that has been done has been analysed by Marine Scotland, and that that analysis shows that it is not at all a good deal for Scotland. Some areas will be worse off, and others will be marginally better off. Whether there will, in the future, be significant benefits is a question on which, to be frank, the jury is out. The provision that is of particular concern is that unless the deal is renegotiated in a way that is acceptable to the EU, at the end of five years it can start to punish British fishermen by imposing tariffs, starting on fisheries products including farmed fish, then moving on to other areas.

Peter Chapman’s question is hypothetical, at the moment. We did however, set out in our sustainable fisheries management policy the approach that we would try to take, which is there for you to see. Our focus at the moment is on trying to get the best deal that we can get through the outcome of the negotiations that are taking place with the Faroe Islands, Norway, the EU and the UK. That must be our focus at the moment, rather than answering what are, I am afraid, pretty hypothetical questions.

Can we have a very brief supplementary from Emma Harper, please?

My understanding on inshore fisheries quota is that the quota for queen scallops in the south Irish Sea, where Kirkcudbright fishermen fish, was left out of the negotiations by the UK Government, so Kirkcudbright fishermen now cannot fish for queen scallops in the south Irish Sea. Can that be addressed in the future so that they can fish the waters that they are used to fishing again?

10:00  

I think that that is correct. Perhaps Jane MacPherson can answer on the technical aspects of that question.

I apologise, cabinet secretary, because I do not have the specifics on that fishery, although I am happy to follow that up and get an answer to the committee. We can correspond on that.

Thank you. John Finnie will be next. We are halfway through the questions and we are happy.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. We are no longer under the common fisheries policy. Can you outline, please, what progress has been made on producing a joint fisheries statement, and what is the timeline for when a draft statement might be shared with the four UK Parliaments?

The UK fisheries administrations have agreed a timeline for completion of the joint fisheries statement. They have agreed a policy outline and drafting has commenced and is in the early stages. We will keep everybody in the community of interest engaged in the drafting ahead of a formal public consultation in winter this year into spring next year. A final draft of the document will be laid before each legislature for comment, and for adoption in winter 2022.

Early in the parliamentary session, the Scottish Government undertook to bring in new inshore fisheries legislation. Could you please comment on the status of that, specifically with regards to three points? Our sister committee, the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, had a marine planning inquiry that recommended regional inshore fisheries groups. Will the Scottish Government commit to making RIFGs statutory bodies?

A discussion paper from the Scottish Government on fisheries management said that it saw merit in introducing “a significant low-impact trial”. Can you say why that proposal was dropped?

Finally, what would the Scottish Government’s new fisheries strategy be on spatial management of inshore fisheries with regard to things such as scallop dredging and bottom trawling?

Those are three quite big questions. First, I say that progress on an inshore fisheries bill was impeded by Brexit and Covid, but now, frankly, the inshore fisheries are being impeded by Brexit. We have seen huge difficulties being caused by the cost of exports, for example. Mr Finnie will know that for exports of prawns and crabs the Spanish, Italian and French markets were key—they were the valuable markets. Sadly, it has been a very difficult time.

I will be brief; I have no choice but to respond briefly. We work very closely with inshore fisheries groups and have excellent relationships with the vast majority of them. I think that the best way to manage fisheries is, in principle, to manage them locally, rather than from Edinburgh. How that would be set out in statutory form is an important question that I do not want to prejudge. Generally speaking, I think that the principle of local management is good.

Secondly, sustainable fisheries are at the heart of what we do. I have said before and say again that the work that I have ordered—with the full support of the fisheries sector—on installation of remote electronic monitoring equipment has the capacity to radically improve spatial management of fisheries, because we can tell where fishing vessels are. That can either convict or exculpate those who are accused of improper fishing practices.

Thirdly, we seek to use a wide variety of pilots. I do not want to stray into territory in which I might inadvertently comment on any matter that is sub judice at the moment, but we have a very good record of trialling various methods all around the coast, working with inshore fisheries groups and others who have an interest. That will continue to form part of our general approach.

I finish by saying that although there are some very controversial areas of contention, by and large we do not really hear about the vast majority of inshore fishing in which people live and let live—they coexist and they recognise different needs and different practices. We all want to ensure that inshore fisheries, which are highly regulated, are fished sustainably.

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

I will hand the convenership back to Edward Mountain, who is with us again.

Thank you very much, Stewart, for jumping in.

There is a need for a joined-up approach to all marine sectors. The fisheries management strategy is set out in the context of our wider blue economy action plan. What is the timescale for delivering the plan and how will it link to the fisheries management strategy?

I agree with Mr MacDonald’s sentiment, so we have committed just over £600,000 to our blue carbon research programme. That has levered in significant match funding from Scottish research institutes and partners. We are doing a lot of things to protect habitats through, for example, the marine protected area network. There is a lot more detail, but those are perhaps the two main points.

Do you have detail on the timescale?

On 21 September we designated the west of Scotland MPA. It is the largest MPA in national waters in north-east Europe, with an area of over 100,000km². That locks in protection for deep-sea sediment, which has been shown to be an important blue carbon habitat. For many priority marine features we are seeking to build on existing protections from the impact of human activities, through the marine licensing process, by adopting proposals to introduce fisheries management in our MPA network. In all that, of course, we want to work with fishermen and with fisheries’ interests to make sure that we are operating on a team-Scotland basis.

Before designating an MPA, we have a proper thorough and agreed analysis of the impact that the MPA might have, particularly on the inshore fisheries interests that have, after all, been there for centuries.

We know that the fisheries management strategy commits to an

“ecosystem-based approach to management.”

What action does that approach entail? Following recent scrutiny of the climate change plan update, will consideration of blue carbon form part of the ecosystem-based approach?

Management decisions should be taken not in isolation but in partnership with others. Decisions to fish a particular stock take account of environmental impacts; for example, impacts on the seabed and on species’ dependence on particular fish stocks for their feed source, in an ecosystem. Put simply, we will take fisheries management decisions in partnership transparently, and we will take account of the best evidence and science in order to get the best outcomes.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I would like to focus my question on fish farming. You will be well aware of our report on the regulation and future of fish farming. I want to focus first specifically on the issue of planning. When we reviewed the report, we felt that it was important to know that the problem was that, when local authorities receive an application for a fish farm, they have to in law, quite rightly, make the application decision on the actual application. The committee’s view was that that seems miss a strategic approach to identifying good places for fish farming as well as areas where it is not appropriate to farm fish. During the current parliamentary session, we got agreement on that but, when we reviewed it, there did not seem to be much happening. We are now facing an election in May and a new or renewed Government will come in, so how far have we got towards addressing the issue of a strategic approach to planning on fish farming?

We have made significant progress but it is still a work in progress. The renewed Parliament will have a good legacy on which to build. We published a 10-year farmed fish health framework. We launched the salmon interactions working group. We have updated and I updated Parliament in 2019 on actions to strengthen sea lice management, lowering reporting and intervention levels to two and six adult female lice per fish from three and eight, with a further reduction to two and four in 2021 unless there is evidence to the contrary.

The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has launched a new framework and sector plan for finfish. In addition to that, we have made improvements to the planning system. I think that they went through the parliamentary process fairly recently, but there is more work to be done.

A great deal of work has been done on the fish health framework, which I think has taken things forward. It is important to stress that, as well as the Government, the industry has been investing substantially in improving fish health, with investment in hatcheries extending to hundreds of millions of pounds. Of course, that means the fish spend less time in pens out at sea and more time in hatcheries. That in itself is a significant gain.

Finally, convener—because I do not want to go on too long—we have banned the shooting of seals to control them, and we have published a review of the acoustic deterrent device spatial management issue.

I do not think that we have been sitting on our hands doing nothing but I acknowledge Mr Rumbles’ point that there is more to be done, and we are working particularly on the spatial management issue and guidance to planners, which I think would be of further value. These are complex and difficult areas and my desire is to take as many people as possible with us in everything we do in this regard, which is not always easy.

I accept what you are saying about all the initiatives, and good initiatives are and have been taken to change the regulatory system, for instance, with SEPA on specific issues. My question really is about the big picture. It seems to me that the wheels are moving incredibly slowly. I assume that everybody on the committee wants to support the fish farming industry as best we can. We came to the view that the best way to do that was to take this strategic approach but the law does not allow it to happen at the moment. Will you be putting this in a legacy paper for a renewed Government or a different Government to take forward? Just as the Parliament is producing such papers for the new Parliament, I assume the Government will want to hand this over. It is not a party-political issue. It is really about trying to get the best result.

10:15  

It is not impossible that I might have some part to play in a new Government. I am certainly hopeful of that, but it is up to the electorate. My job is, as you say, to pass on a legacy.

I think that we have recognised that the pattern that Norway followed for the location of fish farms is increasingly the correct one. Namely, instead of having several thousand small pens, you have several hundred large pens, to put it bluntly. The fish pens are increasingly located in high energy areas, perhaps slightly further out to sea rather than inshore sea lochs, which have particular issues. That trend has been enabled by the lifting of the cap of 2,500 tonnes per pen.

There is more work to be done to develop the system by which we can have confidence in larger pens, such as those located near Rum, for example, where there are some examples that are in point.

The second point is that we have not seen the innovation sites go ahead. They are stimulated and encouraged in Norway because they are exempt from the system of charging for the issue of new licences by per 1,000 tonnes. The fee does not have to be paid for innovation sites and the justification for that is that they are trying out new methods of, for example, delimiting the discharge to the sea. There are some methods that I would like to see tried in Scotland.

So, yes, I want to leave a legacy of saying there is a better way. The Norwegian example gives us lots of pointers, although I am not saying it is perfect or that we can follow it—Norway is not Scotland and Scotland is not Norway. We can, however, look across the water, learn from others, and guide the planners and the planning system better, so that we can achieve sustainable growth without detrimental environmental impact. I think that there is a majority in Parliament for that approach, and that is the approach that I would like to bequeath to the renewed Parliament.

To some extent, the cabinet secretary has pre-empted the question that I was going to ask—and I must declare an interest as the convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare—about the reduction of sea lice in farmed salmon, which is a horrible disease. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has said that Scotland is not Norway and vice versa, but given what he has just said about the Norwegian model, will that kind of thing be in the legacy paper for the incoming cabinet secretary? We wish to eradicate sea lice in farmed salmon as far as possible, for the sake of the welfare of the animals themselves if not also the consumer.

I am not sure that it is possible to totally eradicate sea lice, but I have certainly set out tighter and strengthened sea lice management measures, so I think that we have acted there and that is a legacy.

I should say that I did not commit to doing a legacy paper. I am not sure whether ministers do that across the board. I have not committed to doing that, but I want to leave a legacy of work in progress.

We should also think about the health of the fish.

Yes!

As Ms Grahame will know, it is a crime under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to cause unnecessary suffering to animals and that generally applies to farmed fish. One live question there is that seals can no longer be controlled and, when they approach or attack a cage, they can cause stress and anxiety to fish. We need to consider that, and one of the ways in which the industry is doing that is in the manufacture of pens. The manufacturers create separate little layby areas in the pens to which the fish can retreat to alleviate the stress they suffer. The industry is again using technological development to tackle admitted concerns about the health of the fish as well as of cetaceans, which is an important consideration.

I have a couple of quick questions about food and drink. I am sure we that have some good news stories to tell about our businesses in Scotland. As the cabinet secretary knows, I am very supportive of local food and drink production and of promoting its provenance. I am keen to protect the protected geographical indication status of the fantastic food produced in Scotland. Cabinet secretary, when do you plan to publish the policy statement on food, and any other good news stories that you can tell us about food and drink in Scotland?

I could tell lots of stories, but I do not think that I have the time. Our food production is of high quality and it is increasingly produced sustainably. I think that it will provide opportunities for a premium.

The work will be led by the ministerial working group that I chair to ensure a cross-cutting approach. It is an iterative process that will take account of the Covid pandemic. The views of stakeholders are important and my officials have spoken to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about stakeholder engagement, so we want it to be a broad approach.

As we have discussed, convener, the requirements to take immediate action because of the pandemic and indeed the alarming impacts of Brexit, have meant that this is where I have asked my officials to direct their focus. We will certainly publish the statement of policy on food as soon as we can. I cannot give a date today because, before we publish it, I think that it is important to make sure that there has been the widest buy-in and, as I say, I also want to involve DEFRA in that.

I think that it will take some time, probably for the next session of Parliament, convener, but I can double check and come back to members on that just to make sure. I did not anticipate that question coming up.

I have a final quick supplementary. Apologies for asking a question that the cabinet secretary might not have been prepared for. I assume that, as we develop strategies for food production in Scotland, it will strengthen the local economies and local communities, so that we have a robust, local food production supply chain.

Absolutely, and we work to help primary producers such as farmers and fishers to get the best possible deal from retailers and supermarkets. We have done a lot of very productive work on that. We also want to see primary producers enabled to sell directly online. I think that online is going to disrupt retail, not only in clothing, records and books but also in food—it is an on-going process. Farmers’ markets need not just be located physically; there is potential there for them to be located online.

We also need to continue the success we have had in the food for life programme, to provide more locally produced food to our kids at primary school, in particular, so that they have a healthy diet. Above all, we want to value our farmers and fishers for the great work that they do. Goodness me, if they had not continued during the pandemic where would we be? Where would the food on our plate have come from? How would we have been able to keep going as a society? We owe them a great debt.

The next questions come from Angus MacDonald.

I turn to crofting. The committee was disappointed that the proposed introduction of a crofting bill in the current session was dropped as a result of the pandemic. However, it is clear that work continues behind the scenes, not least in looking at how to address the issues that were raised in the crofting law sump with a view to simplifying crofting law, which is long overdue.

We were expecting a national development plan for crofting to be published last autumn, but it does not seem to have been published as yet. What is the status of the national development plan for crofting? Which non-legislative reforms will it aim to address?

The national development plan for crofting will be published in this session of Parliament. That has definitely always been my intention and I make it clear that, barring the unforeseen, it remains my intention. It aims to safeguard crofting for future generations, to build on the achievements of the past and to look at future opportunities, not least in respect of the environment and what crofters can do in areas such as peatland restoration, forestry and the sustainable conduct of livestock farming. The work that Martin Kennedy and Joyce Campbell are doing will include consideration of how we can create more opportunities for crofters, particularly active crofters. I hope that the plan will be published fairly soon, because there ain’t much time left.

We certainly look forward to seeing the plan in the next few weeks. What legacy would you say that the Scottish Government will leave on crofting reform? Where is the legislative reform process at? What are the priority next steps?

I am particularly pleased that, in crofting, we have made it possible for so many crofters to secure a place of their own through the crofting agricultural grant scheme, which has been a success. I think that Mr MacDonald is well aware of just how successful that scheme has been; it has made more than 1,000 grants since 2007. That does not sound a lot, but it is quite a lot for many crofting communities.

As far as the proposed legislation goes, Mr MacDonald is correct—we had to suspend it because of Brexit and Covid. We had intended to proceed, and I very much regret that we were not able to do that in the current session of Parliament. I anticipate that we will do it in the next session of Parliament; I would certainly want us to.

The Law Society of Scotland has undertaken a good piece of work. I cannot go into detail, but I draw members’ attention to it. There is a full report and summary available on the Law Society of Scotland website, and I am grateful to the society for that. A lot of work has been done behind the scenes. That is a legacy that the next Government can use and gain from. It includes the work of the cross-party group on crofting and other pro bono advice from many crofting lawyers and experts. We will return to the issue, but I think that the development plan will be important, alongside the CAGS support, which is absolutely invaluable to crofting.

Finally, I am determined to do even more. As I mentioned, 100 crofters gain from forestry. Of course, not all crofting land is suitable for forestry, but I think that we can do a lot more, so I am working on that as we speak.

That is good to hear—thank you.

Before we move on, I have a couple of questions on crofting. The committee that produced the sump report was set up in 2013. We are eight years down the track from when it came up with all its conclusions. At the beginning of the session, the committee hoped that we would see some movement on the issue. How much longer do you think that it will be before the recommendations in the sump report are dealt with?

This is just my personal view, because the matter is one for the next session of Parliament, but I very much hope that the sump issues, which we were and remain committed to tackling, can be tackled in the first or second year of the next session of Parliament.

What happens next will be up to Parliament in the new session. It is not for me to say what it must do, but I am offering my ideas. I talked about the “first or second year” of the next session; all those of us who have considered the issue understand how difficult it is to get a large consensus on reform in crofting areas. Previous experience in Parliament—I have 22 years of such experience—shows that, just when you think that consensus exists, somehow it slips through your fingers, as if you are trying to hold a glass of mercury. That is no criticism of anybody; it is simply an observation.

Therefore, I think that festina lente is a good watchword to bear in mind in crofting reform. That has proven to be the case so far, but it is not for lack of good will on the part of any party—the good will is there. I state seriously that I am very disappointed that we could not do it, but the legislative workload and burden on the Parliament as a result of Brexit and Covid speaks for itself. It is there. It is a matter of fact, I think. I do not think that anyone could gainsay that.

In addition, my personal view is that, if the Parliament were to stop choosing to debate ad infinitum at stage 3 things that it has already debated at stage 2, we would have much more time to do more.

10:30  

It sounds as though you are making a pitch for the Presiding Officer’s role.

My problem with the crofting law is that, as someone who has worked on the crofting management side of it, I know that, to understand crofting law, you need to have about four law books open on the table at any one stage in order to understand which bit of crofting law is relevant. My abiding wish is that crofting survives into the future and has a prominent part to play, but my concern is that I do not believe that it can do that if it is necessary to have four law books open on the table to understand even the basics of it. Would you agree?

That is an extremely fair point. I was previously the minister who led consolidation acts in bankruptcy, where exactly the same criticism was levelled. There was a plethora of legislation dating back to the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, as I recall. Therefore, I think that it would be helpful if, in the next session, Parliament was able not only to deal with the sump and to legislate for that but, thereafter, if there is an opportunity, to have a consolidation bill, which would remove the issue that the convener rightly highlights.

I hope that that would identify the really positive role that crofting plays in the countryside, not only with regard to farming and protection of the environment but in keeping people in the countryside and keeping communities going. I make that as a comment, on which I seek your agreement.

Well, I agree up to a point, but law is words on a page. The programmes that we pursue and the action that we take are perhaps primarily what matter, but law plays a part. The law is a bit complicated at the moment, so the sump is the priority. I would like to stress that. If the opportunity arises in the next session of Parliament to introduce a consolidation bill, that would be fine. I should stress that the Scottish Law Commission has an important role to play here. It is not for me to pre-empt that role in relation to consolidation; I would want to hear from our legal advisers at some point.

Emma Harper is next. You can ask two questions, so I ask you to choose them carefully.

It is unfortunate that the best questions are those that are last to be asked. The women in agriculture task force gave evidence to the committee on 9 December, which was a year on from the publication of its final report. A number of issues on which support was needed were highlighted: diversification, environmental schemes, organic farming, training and skills, and support for new entrants. What opportunities are you considering that would help women in agriculture to get further on and have further success?

Thank you for the question. Of course, women are achieving great things in agriculture and no one more so than Joyce Campbell who, with me, co-chaired the women in agriculture group, which has produced a report that I think is of real practical value. You asked what opportunities there are. We are piloting a women’s rural business creation programme, with a third of places being allocated to women in agriculture who wish to diversify their businesses. If successful, the programme could be widened, thereby empowering more women in the rural economy.

We have invested £100,000 in our women in agriculture practical training fund. Lantra, which has experience of training and skills in the rural economy, administers that fund, which supports all women in agriculture who want to develop new skills, including new entrants or young women in family businesses who—because farming increasingly involves so many different activities—might want to learn more about how to further upskill themselves. There are particular skills to be learned. We are also working with Lantra Scotland through the Scottish Government CivTech challenge process to sponsor the development of a skills sharing app by the company SkillSeeder.

Those are three practical things that we are doing, but I hope that, in the next session, Parliament can continue the implementation of the report of the women in agriculture task force, which points the way to further progress in empowering and enabling women to achieve even more in rural Scotland.

I have one final question. I know that the “Be your best self” training programme has been delayed because of Covid. What work is being done across Government and local authorities to support early learning and ensure that child care provision in rural areas helps to support the advancement of women in agriculture. Could you give us a wee update on that, please?

The “Be your best self” training pilot has been delivered to three groups of women in Scottish agriculture, and the online version of the workshop, which allows us to roll it out more widely and make it more accessible, has been successful. A new contract for the mainstream programme will be going out to tender in the near future, and I encourage all women who wish to take part in the training to register their interest through the rural payments and services website. In addition, equality should be normalised within rural and agricultural policy, and I want to see that work continue as well.

Emma, you indicated that you might have one further small question about childcare. Do you want to briefly ask that question?

Sure. I would be happy to accept a written response, if that would be helpful from a time point of view. My question is about childcare provision in rural areas, which was highlighted as a challenge. The issue does not necessarily relate directly to the cabinet secretary’s brief, because it covers other portfolios, but is childcare provision for women in agriculture continuing to be looked at?

Yes. Research—[Inaudible.]. Sorry, convener.

I was going to say that if you wanted to provide a written response, I would have been happy with that, but if you want to give a brief answer now, that is fine.

Briefly, research has been carried out with childcare providers. A report has been finalised that examines some innovative and flexible models of childcare, including outdoor provision and integrated services, which are practically orientated—[Inaudible.]

This time, it is the cabinet secretary who has frozen. Is that right? Emma, can you hear me?

Yes, I can.

The cabinet secretary has frozen. I will make no comments about broadband in the Highlands, because I got ticked off by Angus MacDonald, who told me that it works very well in the islands.

On the basis that we are not going to get the cabinet secretary back, and on the basis that he does not have to answer questions on broadband any more, I would like to thank the witnesses for taking part in this evidence session. I ask Mr Burgess to pass on my thanks to the cabinet secretary, because he is likely to speak to him before I do.

I suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.

10:38 Meeting suspended.  

10:49 On resuming—