Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020

Official Report 653KB pdf

---

Agriculture Bill

Item 8 is for the committee to consider a legislative consent motion, lodged by Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity. The LCM relates to the UK Agriculture Bill. As the lead committee, we are required to reflect on the memorandum, consider whether we are content with its terms and report our findings to the Parliament. The DPLR committee considered the LCM at its meeting on 12 May. It is content with the responses that it received about the balance of powers between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, but it is less satisfied with the responses about how parliamentary scrutiny would be ensured. We have a letter from the DPLR, which says that the Scottish Government’s response does not contain a commitment to notify the Scottish Parliament in advance of consenting to the UK Government making legislation within devolved competence or to obtain the Scottish Parliament’s views. We also have correspondence from the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. I ask the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement and then we will move to questions.

The legislative consent memorandum for the UK Agriculture Bill was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 4 May. The Scottish Government is recommending consent only to provisions on food security, fertilisers and the red meat levy within the bill.

The Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government to secure an approach to the provisions on organic products, livestock information and the World Trade Organization agreement on agriculture that we can support. That includes our proposed amendments to introduce statutory consent requirements for those provisions within the bill.

A supplementary memorandum might be lodged in due course, depending on the progress that is made with the UK Government on those outstanding policy issues.

Because of the on-going Covid response, there has been a delay at Westminster to the remaining Commons stages of the bill. It is expected that those stages will take place later today.

My officials and I are happy to take further questions from the committee.

What is the Scottish Government’s reason for recommending consent only for certain provisions in the bill? That is unusual.

11:30  

The reasoning is set out fully in the legislative consent memorandum that is before the convener and Mr Chapman. There are provisions in the bill with which we are content, such as those relating to food security, the red meat levy and fertilisers, and for which the Scottish Government is happy to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament. There are other provisions, such as those on organic products and the identification and traceability of animals, for which we would be prepared to seek the Parliament’s consent, as signalled at paragraph 23, if there was some adjustment by the UK Government. Finally, there are areas in which there is disagreement between the UK and Scottish Governments about the need for consent at all. The picture is complex, but we believe that the LCM, which is lengthy, sets it out as clearly as possible.

We spend a lot of time working with the UK Government to try to agree things if we possibly can. In one case, the UK Government accepted that its view of the law, which had been hitherto held for two or three years, was wrong, and it was good enough to retreat on that point, so we made progress. We are still willing to make progress if that is possible. I engage regularly with Victoria Prentis, who is the new farming and fishing minister, and, of course, with George Eustice.

Will future funding be included in the block grant? If there is policy divergence, what impact might that have on funding?

I ask the officials to listen carefully and to correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that none of the provisions in the bill relate to EU funding. As noted in the LCM, part 1 of the UK bill, on financial assistance, does not apply to Scotland. There are wider questions on guarantees about future funding, and we are concerned that there is insufficient clarity from the UK about replacing EU funding, but my understanding is that that is not the province of the bill.

If you do not mind, convener, I would be grateful if the officials could confirm that I have got that entirely correct.

Absolutely. Who is going to disagree or agree with the cabinet secretary?

I would not dare to disagree with him. I think that he is correct.

Has that provided the cabinet secretary with sufficient reassurance for us to move on to the next question?

To the best of my belief, and having had a quick look at my briefing, I believe that what I have said is the case. If it is not, we will revert to Rachael Hamilton immediately thereafter.

Funding is not really the issue in the bill—there is a load of other pretty technical issues—except for the provisions on the red meat levy. The bill paves the way for repatriation of the red meat levy, which has been allocated south of the border and relates to cattle that have been born and reared, and that have survived until their last day or so, in Scotland. We have been calling for those provisions and absolutely support them. They should have been implemented this April—or even last April—but, sadly, there have been delays to the bill because of Brexit and Covid-19. The provisions cannot come soon enough, because they will allow us to do more marketing of our high-quality beef and they will allow QMS to build on the good work that it does there anent.

I find it difficult to understand how the bill can progress without having the common frameworks alongside it to set out the working relationships between the Administrations and how disputes will be resolved. Will the cabinet secretary comment on that?

My briefing informs me that the question of common frameworks is addressed in paragraphs 32 and 33 of the LCM. Paragraph 32 says:

“In relation to organic products and fertilisers, non-statutory frameworks have been proposed, with clauses 31, 36 and 37 providing any required statutory underpinning.”

Our priority is to get the arrangements for consent for organic products right in the bill so that the non-statutory framework setting out working arrangements can be progressed. In relation to WTO, we regret the UK Government’s approach is to push through the provisions in clauses 40 to 42 without having regard to the agreed principles in common frameworks. Apparently, the UK Government has belatedly recognised that one aspect of those WTO clauses requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That was the issue that I was alluding to in response to the previous question. We hope that the UK Government will engage with us meaningfully on the matter.

My question is simple. The LCM agrees consent in various areas. What are the implications for those areas that have been agreed on if agreement is not reached on the other areas?

That might be a legal question and therefore one that I would not be qualified to answer. The LCM does what it says—it gives qualified consent. The question would be what the status is of those provisions for which the Scottish Government and—if the motion is approved—the Scottish Parliament have withheld consent. It would probably be imprudent for me to ponder that legal question.

It is more a question of democracy. Despite the fact that my approach has been to try to co-operate fully on agriculture and fishing bills and to make progress by working consensually with UK officials, which we do all the time, on some occasions we seem to reach a stumbling block such that we just have to agree to disagree. With the benefit of the appropriate advice, we absolutely believe that some measures predate powers of the Scottish Parliament and we are, in principle, opposed to that. We believe that we should stand up for the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Such provisions might relate to highly technical matters, but that does not mean that they are not important in practice to people’s lives, livelihoods and the environment.

We are taking a principled approach. I think I know what answer the UK Government would give, but as I cannot speak for the UK Government I will hold my counsel.

That sounds like legal advice.

Are members content to recommend in the committee’s report that the Parliament should agree the draft motion as set out in the LCM?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we also agreed to note the actions being taken by the DPLR Committee in our report?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content for me to agree the wording of a short report to the Parliament summarising the committee’s consideration of the LCM with the clerks?

Members indicated agreement.