Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Official Report 633KB pdf

---

Implications of European Union Referendum

Item 2 concerns the implications of the outcome of the European Union referendum for Scotland. Before we move into that session, I ask members to declare any interests that they have in relation to it. I declare that I am a partner in a farm business.

I have a small registered agricultural holding.

I am a partner in an agricultural farming business in Aberdeenshire.

Thank you. This is the second update in 2017 from the Scottish ministers on the implications of the outcome of the EU referendum for Scotland. I welcome Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, and Mike Russell, Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe. They are accompanied by David Barnes, national adviser on agricultural policy; Mike Palmer, deputy director at Marine Scotland; and Ian Davidson, head of constitution and United Kingdom relations. Would the cabinet secretary like to make a brief opening statement, followed by the minister? If you want to do it the other way round, I am relaxed about that.

Members of the committee will be aware of the main features of what I have to say is a fast-moving Brexit landscape. The first of those is the state of play in EU-UK negotiations and the key question of whether the December European Council meeting will assess that there has been sufficient progress to move from exit negotiations to framework negotiations. The main issues at stake there are finance, the position of EU citizens, the role of the European Court of Justice and, of course, the Northern Irish border. I am happy to reflect on any or all of those. Last week I was in London, Brussels, Dublin and Belfast, so I have been briefed on and have been discussing those issues.

The second issue is the difficulties surrounding the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. They are not just to do with devolution and devolved powers; they are also to do with the Scottish Government’s approach to Brexit and how it can protect the interests of Scottish citizens and businesses in particular. The Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have made it clear that they cannot accept the bill as drafted. The negotiations continue, and Damian Green will be in Edinburgh tomorrow to meet me and the Deputy First Minister. I am happy to update the committee on where those discussions have got to and what the issues are, including the work on frameworks.

Frameworks are the third issue. We are approaching that issue pragmatically and responsibly and are trying to find a way in which frameworks would work. We have said from the very beginning, of course, that we understand that frameworks should exist in some areas, but that those frameworks must be established within the principles of devolution and be able to work and deliver. Agriculture is among the areas that we are looking at in our so-called deep-dive exercise. Ian Davidson has just returned to the surface after another deep dive. I would be happy to update members on where we are on that and the progress that is being made.

Those are the key issues for me, but I will reflect on anything else that the committee asks me to reflect on. I am sure that Mr Ewing will take the primary responsibility for his subject area.

I, too, will be brief.

As members know, the Scottish Government was never in favour of Brexit, but we are making the best we can out of the situation that we are in. To do so, we are taking advice from a wide range of people. Thereanent, members will be aware of two recent documents that are relevant to today’s session. On 17 November, the Scottish Government’s four agriculture champions published their interim discussion document for comments by the end of the year, and today the National Council of Rural Advisers has published its report on the impact of Brexit on the rural economy. I believe that efforts were made to allow members of the committee to receive an embargoed copy of that yesterday so that they would have a chance for a quick examination of that interim report. Those documents tend to confirm the Government’s view of Brexit, which is that the threat to rural and coastal Scotland is huge and the vast majority of people are very worried by the huge uncertainties. We still have no information whatsoever about the content of the UK fisheries bill or the UK agriculture bill, for example.

I have been told that today the committee wants to focus on the agriculture and fisheries elements of the rural economy and connectivity portfolio. It is regrettable that, in respect of farming and the food supply chain, there has been very little progress on the main issues of future funding, workforce issues and future trade arrangements. I include forestry in that. The funding uncertainty in particular is having a real-life impact on the sector.

On onshore and offshore fisheries, the key issues are the funding of the European maritime and fisheries fund, workforce issues, future trade arrangements for salmon and other seafood exports, and sea fisheries management in the Scottish zone.

If that sounds like a gloomy picture, it is simply a reflection of what I hear and what people say and think in farming, fishing and other parts of the rural economy in Scotland.

My officials and I are, of course, happy to discuss all those matters with the committee.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. It will not surprise you or the minister that we have a long list of questions. I encourage everyone to give as brief and succinct answers as possible to allow me to ensure that every committee member gets to ask the questions that they would like to ask.

Good morning, gentlemen. You have partly covered what I am going to ask about. Are you being updated on Brexit during your engagement with the UK Government? Are you discussing with the other devolved Administrations the process of leaving the EU? What plans are there for future engagement, especially on agriculture and fisheries?

I have regular dialogue with an enormous range of people. My job has three parts, essentially: I undertake the negotiations within the UK; work on potential solutions to our problems; and meet the widest range of people.

Among the devolved Administrations, I work very closely with my Welsh counterpart, Mark Drakeford. On Friday morning, we had a meeting in Dublin, and we both spoke at an event in London last week. I regularly meet the UK Government, and officials very regularly meet UK Government officials.

I last spoke to Damian Green, who chairs the joint ministerial committee, three weeks ago, when we had a bilateral meeting in Jersey, on the margins of the British-Irish Council summit. We will continue to have discussions. The JMC has started to meet again, which is very welcome. I have paid tribute to Damian Green’s role in getting the process started on a slimmed-down basis.

I endeavour to have the widest contacts with people in Brussels. For example, at the European Parliament I saw Danuta Hübner, one of the five members of the Brexit group there. I spoke on the platform with her last week, and I see her regularly. I see other members of that group and other members of the European Parliament. I regularly meet commissioners and staff of the Commission and of the Council.

We keep in close contact with others who are involved in the process. At the British-Irish Council, there will be conversations with the Irish Government and with the Crown dependencies. In Northern Ireland, which is more difficult given the current lack of an Administration, we have contacts that have been built up over a long period of time. I had hoped to see the Democratic Unionist Party this weekend, but it was holding its conference; however, I hope to see it before the end of the year. I did meet somebody from the Ulster Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Féin in the past week or so, and I will keep that dialogue going.

What is your view on there being a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland?

We would not want to do anything that makes that situation more difficult, but quite clearly the issue is now crucial. Last week, it was being discussed very openly and fully in Brussels, whereas, two or three weeks ago, it was hardly mentioned. It is essential that there is no hard border: it is vital, as far as trade is concerned; but it is also very important for the stability of the Northern Irish peace process and the Good Friday agreement. Our view is very much that they require to find a solution, but that it will be very difficult to find if—to be blunt—the Conservatives are in hock to the DUP and the DUP does not want the solution that the Irish Government proposes. There needs to be continued dialogue and debate, but the issue should not be diminished. The language and rhetoric that are being used on the subject—particularly from some parts of the Brexiteer press—are very damaging indeed. There needs to be a much more sober assessment of what can be pursued.

There is very obvious frustration in the Irish Government that it has not been listened to on these issues. The view tends to be that the British Government, having created the problem, is coming to the table with no solutions. There needs to be negotiation and a solution, but there cannot be a hard border.

The obvious solution is the one that the Scottish Government has espoused for Scotland and, indeed, for the whole of the UK, which is to remain in the customs union and, preferably, the single market as well. That context could change the process. It would change negotiations, because they would then become about single market minus. It would also change the dynamic in Ireland, because if there is a customs union, the problem disappears. However, the customs union has to apply more widely than Ireland if the border is not to be a great issue. I think that that is where the solution lies, and I will continue to espouse that view. It has been our position for a year.

Thank you.

Cabinet secretary, may I bring you in, because you wanted to answer that too? Then I will bring in Mike Rumbles.

As far as engagement is concerned, at the start of the year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the devolved Administrations agreed to set up five official-level working groups. Those were on food and farming; marine and fisheries; animal and plant health; environment; and legislative issues. In April, it was agreed to form two additional groups—making seven in all—on trade, as requested by Northern Ireland, and forestry, which I requested on the part of the Scottish Government. Each working group has made its own decisions on how often it meets. The groups report to a senior officials group that meets regularly—most recently, last Friday.

It was also agreed that four-way ministerial meetings would take place every month but, since the start of the year, there have been only four: in February, here in Edinburgh, which was with Andrea Leadsom; and in April, September and November. DEFRA unilaterally cancelled meetings in January, May and June due to the UK general election, and then again in July. The next ministerial meeting is scheduled for 14 December. My approach to participation in ministerial meetings is to be constructive and co-operative, to discuss and to debate, but not to be dictated to.

Thus far, there is no evidence that there is proper sharing of information. For example, when I asked Michael Gove whether he would share the agriculture and fisheries bill, the answer was no—abrupt, short and wholly unsatisfactory. Let us hope that with the new year a new leaf may be turned.

10:45  

Good morning. I have been advocating for almost 18 months that the Scottish ministers should take the initiative and design a new, bespoke system of agricultural support for when we leave the EU, by getting all our stakeholders—producers, environmentalists and consumers—together to agree a way forward for Scotland. It now looks like that opportunity is being missed. Both Scottish and UK ministers are now talking about working within an agreed UK framework.

Why are the Scottish ministers not working on designing a bespoke system of agricultural support for Scotland that will feed into that UK framework? Are we just going to implement the common agricultural policy as we inherited it? Why are we missing such a marvellous opportunity, in some respects, to design a bespoke system for Scotland?

Cabinet secretary, I think that falls to you to answer.

Not for the first time, I must respectfully disagree with everything that Mike Rumbles has just said. First, we believe that it is essential that Scotland remain in the single market.

Secondly, we think that the damage that would be wreaked by ending the free movement of people in the agricultural and rural sectors would be so catastrophic that, quite frankly, I am astonished that Mike Rumbles suggests that our attention should be devoted to producing a new policy when we have no idea what the Brexit deal is going to be. I would have thought that, logically, what we should be concentrating on—which my colleague Mr Russell is concentrating on—is trying to snatch some crumbs of comfort from the jaws of a catastrophe. That is what we are doing to try to get the best result from Brexit.

Of course, we have—as Mr Rumbles knows—taken steps to pursue a parallel approach of getting advice from experts. I have already referred to the agriculture champions; their interim report has been available for a while now and I commend them for it. The National Council of Rural Advisers’ interim report is also available in pretty quick time. The latter report was one that Parliament asked that I obtain, and I did exactly what Parliament asked—and more quickly perhaps.

Those reports will inform our future progress. We must get the best deal for Scotland. If we are pulled out of the single market—if we cannot continue to enjoy the fruits of the labours of the people from all over the European continent who choose to work in Scotland—very serious problems will face the sector. First of all, we need to ameliorate the position and mitigate the potential disaster of Brexit. Once we see what the outcome is, of course then—but only then, I would submit—we will be able to focus on how best to go forward.

Mr Rumbles is completely wrong: we have done exactly what even he asked for, and I am surprised that he is not showing a little bit of gratitude for that this morning.

That was a particularly long answer and I made the point at the beginning that I will find it difficult to get everyone—

It was necessary.

Cabinet secretary, sorry, but I do not think that coming back with such comments is helpful. I am asking everyone to keep their comments short.

Minister, you would like to add something and then I will briefly go back to Mike Rumbles before moving on to the next question.

As a very brief point, I simply point out that item 1 on the list of 111 items that the UK Government intended to reserve to itself, once they were transferred back from Europe, was agricultural support. Clearly it is absolutely essential that we take part in discussions with the UK to ensure that that does not happen. That way, even if it does turn out to be in an agreed framework, it will be on the basis of co-decision making, which will be a positive step forward.

Mr Rumbles, you may have a short question before we move on.

Thank you, convener. I would like to follow up on that. As the minister knows, it was my amendment in Parliament that he accepted. I knew what I meant by that amendment, and I think that the minister has misinterpreted it yet again.

The issue of the National Council of Rural Advisers is not what we were calling for. This is an opportunity for Scotland to develop its own distinct, individual, bespoke system of agricultural support that is not just an inherited system that was designed for countries on the mainland of Europe. As far as I can see, nothing is being done by the Scottish ministers to design that bespoke system. Is that true or not?

No, it is not true. We have obtained advice in order to prepare as best we can, but of course we just do not have the information now to provide a new policy because—[Interruption.] Mr Rumbles is laughing, but how can you—

I am laughing in frustration.

Sorry, but I am going to stop this now. It is courtesy for both sides to listen to what is being said when people are talking. Mr Rumbles, you might feel frustrated, but please keep your comments to yourself and allow the cabinet secretary to answer, and please, when people are talking, could you not try to have the final word?

I ask the cabinet secretary to give a succinct answer before we move on to the next question.

Under our membership of the European Union, for decades rural Scotland has enjoyed relative certainty about funding through programmes that lasted for seven or eight years. Currently, rural Scotland enjoys financial support from Europe covering a range of issues and totalling around £500 million a year. I have repeatedly made it clear that, until such time as we have clarity from the UK Government on what, post-Brexit, that funding will be replaced with, it is simply impossible—by definition—to prepare the sort of plan that Mr Rumbles thinks that we should produce.

I have asked Mr Gove repeatedly to indicate what his UK Government’s plans are for funding post-Brexit, and I have reminded him—courteously, I hope—that prior to Brexit and the referendum he and his colleagues on the Brexit side said that EU funding would be matched. In fact, some said that it would be at least matched, implying that there would be more funding following Brexit.

It is reasonable to say that until we have clarity about post-Brexit funding—actually, some of the pre-Brexit funding is by no means absolutely certain—it is simply impossible to produce the kind of plan that Mr Rumbles has asked me to produce. I hope that he is happy with that answer.

I am not happy with that answer and I want to record that, if I may.

I think that people have noted that you are not happy with the answer.

Mr Chapman has the next question.

I have a specific question for Mr Russell. In his opening statement, he said that he is negotiating “pragmatically and responsibly” on issues related to UK frameworks. However, Mr Gove told the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee in November that the Scottish Government had instructed its officials not to engage on issues related to UK frameworks. Is that a correct statement and, if so, why was that done?

No, it is not a correct statement.

Why would Mr Gove make such a statement?

I could not possibly put myself into Mr Gove’s mind, and nor would I wish to. The reality is that we are engaged. I think that the words “pragmatically and responsibly” were actually used by Fergus Ewing, but I do not resile from them.

We have engaged in a difficult exercise of building trust on both sides to try to get the frameworks to operate. That is a careful and responsible activity. We are doing so step by step, and with the assistance of Damian Green, the First Secretary of State. I pay tribute to him because, having taken over the chair of the joint ministerial committee, he has been very constructive. Step by step, we are trying to create those frameworks. It does not help if either Mr Gove or Ian Duncan, who has repeated that remark, make remarks about Scottish Government officials that are simply not true. The reality is that there have been endless discussions. Ian Davidson is just back from a discussion and officials from Fergus Ewing’s department are endlessly involved in discussions.

However, we will not be bounced into agreements that Mr Gove wishes to reach for his purposes. For example, Mr Gove presented to the last meeting of agriculture ministers what he imagined should be in the frameworks. He had no responsibility for that and no authority to do so, as that matter was rightly being dealt with through the joint ministerial committee, by the agreement of the Prime Minister and the First Minister. Whatever Mr Gove’s or Ian Duncan’s motivations are, we are endeavouring to get a deal and we are working hard on that. We are doing so in a professional and responsible manner, and that should be respected by all parties.

The cabinet secretary wants to add a short comment.

I have just two points. First, Mr Gove is on record as saying on 13 September to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:

“I must say that the Scottish Government officials have been working very collaboratively with Defra officials”.

I just repeat that quotation.

Secondly, I know that Mr Barnes has been taking part in numerous discussions with officials. I am sure that he would be happy to provide details, if members want to ask him and there is time to do so—it is up to you, convener. We have been discussing and debating constructively, but we will not be dictated to in a power grab. I hope that all members would agree that that is the correct approach.

I am afraid that, as you pointed out, time is limited, so I will move on to the next questions.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has been mentioned. What are you still concerned about within the bill? Do you have fewer concerns because you have had discussions? There seems to have been some movement. Do you want more detail in the bill? Do you disagree with the detail that is in the bill? Should some stuff not be in the bill at all and be left to be dealt with through other means?

The position is very clear: there are things in the bill that neither we nor the Welsh Government can accept. Principally, that is clause 11, which takes European competencies and returns them to the UK without any involvement of the devolved Administrations in decisions to be taken by the UK Government. To be fair, the Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that all that should be done by agreement. There is also the principle of UK ministers being able to alter legislation without involving the Scottish Parliament or Scottish ministers. Those are two key issues.

We cannot accept either of those measures. That is not to say that the rest of the bill is acceptable to us, but those are the issues that the devolved Administrations are taking up responsibly compared with the wider issues that others are taking up.

It is not acceptable that clause 11 is in the bill, and we are in the process of trying to have it removed. The amendments that we have tabled would cure that problem. This morning, glutton for punishment that I am, I appeared before the Finance and Constitution Committee. I made it clear at the meeting that if the UK Government has alternative approaches, we would, of course, be willing to discuss them. Officials have been meeting to look at the issues, and they have been part of our discussion in the JMC.

I will briefly set out the five stages that we are going through. The first stage is to agree the principles on which frameworks should be established. We have done that—those principles were published as an annex to the communiqué of the joint ministerial committee on 16 October.

The second stage is to start the deep-dive process—which we proposed—to see whether we could have proof of concept and whether the frameworks would work. The examples that we have used are agriculture, justice and home affairs matters and health issues. We have done that; that has gone well.

The third stage is to see what governance and dispute resolution mechanisms could be put in place. That work is under way and it is progressing.

The fourth stage is to bring that together in a political agreement that says that we can make it work. At the same time, we need to pare down the list of 111 powers and throw out the ones that are not necessary. Adam Tomkins, for example, indicated some weeks ago in a piece in The Scotsman that there are such items in the list—the example that he used was aircraft noise. Without conceding the principle that there should be no alteration to the basics of the devolved settlement, that power does not need to be there; it can go.

The final stage is to take all those things and put them into legislation, so that we can change the withdrawal bill and be prepared for future legislation.

We are almost three parts out of five into that work. We are still talking. We have another meeting tomorrow with Damian Green and a JMC meeting on 12 December. We are making progress. However, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so we have to make sure that we work our way through those stages and reach a conclusion. That is best done by the negotiation process, rather than in freelancing by Ian Duncan or Michael Gove.

John Mason will come back in with a follow-up question, then I will bring in the cabinet secretary to answer, too.

My follow-up question might actually be for the cabinet secretary. I will ask it anyway, and it is up to them to decide who answers.

If we take a policy such as the common agricultural policy, I understand that we get 16 per cent of UK funding. If the UK were to control more of the agricultural policy area, the hope would be that we would continue to get 16 per cent of the funding. If the UK Government were to give us just 8.3 per cent of funding in line with our population, we might have complete control but we would have less money. Is there a money versus control aspect to consider?

The process cannot be completed without discussing and making sure that resources are secure. For example, if there is to be a framework on agriculture—that is probably the most complex of frameworks; fisheries may also be in there and environment would be part of it—money must be a part of the overall solution. If there is a quantum now, that quantum must be included in those discussions. I do this very much in co-operation with the cabinet secretaries who are involved in the process. They stress to me what is important to them in the process, and Fergus Ewing stressed at the very beginning that the financial issue would be crucial.

11:00  

There are two overarching concerns. First, there is the freedom of policy choice. It is no secret that the two main parties in the UK have for some time sought to phase out direct farm payments, or pillar 1 support. Scotland’s position is entirely different; 85 per cent of our land is eligible for the less favoured area support scheme, whereas south of the border it is 15 per cent and they do not have the LFASS any more. It is plain that what has been in our interests is most certainly not the case down south, and if the policy that the main parties down south appear to prefer were to be imposed in Scotland I believe quite profoundly that it would have catastrophic consequences, especially for hill farming, with land abandonment, depopulation, potential bankruptcies and thousands of farmers going out of business. That is number 1. We must have the freedom of policy choice in any future proposed framework.

On fisheries, the issue of discards is another example in which there are plainly different views. Michael Gove appears to prefer restriction of effort—tying up boats—and we do not prefer that at all.

I have given examples of two areas in which there are different approaches and different views, which is why there must not be a power grab for full devolution of funding.

There is a separate issue from the bill that is absolutely key. The UK funding promises are incomplete because the guarantee up to 2022 is limited to farm support, the definition of which has not been clarified, and they will last only until the farmers’ 2021 single application form. Promises that were made in the EU referendum to match funding post-Brexit were made by ministers, and ministers, if they make promises, must deliver them or cease to be ministers. I call on Mr Gove to do what he said he would do during the EU referendum and make clear his plans for future funding on a long-term basis, as of course is the EU practice.

I want to look at how we go about developing shared frameworks across the UK and, in particular, what role there might be for our stakeholders and for the Scottish Parliament.

First, however, I think that Mr Russell talked about alternative UK Government proposals. I am given to understand that, in rural policy, officials at UK Government level have four different versions of secondary legislation that they may bring forward, depending on what they end up negotiating with the EU. That is fundamentally important to our understanding of where we go and how we can contribute. I am also told that officials at the UK level have been told not to share those drafts with Scottish officials, so we cannot know what the policy considerations are. Is that correct? My information might be imperfect, so I am quite prepared to hear that some parts of it should be corrected.

I cannot confirm whether that is true. UK officials do not share that information even with us. I would not be surprised if there were a range of drafts at this stage. One of the problems in this relationship has been getting early access to information. Fergus Ewing referred to the agriculture bill. I first asked to see the EU withdrawal bill in January at the JMC plenary in Cardiff—I directly asked the Prime Minister for it. We did not see that bill until 30 June or 1 July, two weeks before it was due to be published, and we knew immediately that we could not support it. Early information sharing would be helpful. We have seen the 18 papers that the UK Government has published in negotiations so far just before they were published and without any possibility of input.

However, let us try to fare forward rather than backward. Our view on this is very simple: if we are involved in the discussion we will endeavour to come to a conclusion and ensure that we get an agreement, but it must be a comprehensive agreement that takes account of all the parts that are involved. That includes money but it also includes an agreement on future legislation.

If we can secure agreement on the EU withdrawal bill, which is a sort of gatekeeper bill for those that are to come—agriculture, fisheries, environment, trade and all those bills—we will be in a position to have an easier process in terms of reaching legislative consent. That is not to say that we will agree with the bills, but achieving legislative consent will be easier. That is because we make a distinction between policy—we do not agree with this policy; we think it is daft—and technicality. We recognise that arrangements have to be put in place for the eventuality, so we are trying to do that.

My colleague Mark Drakeford is always very articulate on that, saying that it would have been better not to have this fight. It was an unnecessary fight; we could have agreed on how the bill should have been put together, which was the practice on all bills that required legislative consent up until now—there would have been early negotiation and discussion. That did not happen this time and this is the consequence. The earlier that discussion takes place and the better it is, the more likely it is that we can make progress.

On a technicality, in the absence of a formal review and consideration process at Westminster for secondary legislation, is there a particular threat to the interests of the devolved nations? It appears that a lot of the implementation of the shared frameworks and other matters will be done through secondary legislation at Westminster, but there is no equivalent—

That creates two questions, the first of which is whether UK ministers should be able to bring forward such legislation without consultation with Scottish ministers and this Parliament. The answer is no. That is, the Henry VIII powers, for example, should not be permitted to be exercised in ways that run contrary to the interests of this Parliament. I think that many MPs at Westminster believe that. Liberal Democrats have been involved in attempting to amend the bill and we support those amendments because they are the right thing to do.

The second question, in relation to the complexity of that secondary legislation, is whether there should be a process here to look at that type of scrutiny and legislative consent process for secondary legislation. The Secretary of State for Scotland has indicated that that process should exist. It exists in Wales, of course, given the difference of its devolved settlement. It may well be that one of the changes to devolution that the present process produces will be a legislative consent process for secondary legislation.

Briefly, minister, can I take you back—

We are now deep-diving into the technicalities.

Some important things derive from technicalities. There is no process at Westminster for parliamentary scrutiny of much of the secondary legislation, unlike the situation in the devolved Administrations. Are there particular threats if Westminster uses secondary legislation to put frameworks into effect, without even Westminster parliamentary scrutiny?

Absolutely. There are particular threats in the secondary legislation process, even without Brexit—there are inadequacies in that process. Brexit emphasises and is a magnifying glass on those weaknesses and inadequacies, but it also produces additional ones—that is my point—in relation to the Henry VIII powers and the issue of legislative consent to secondary legislation. Both of those are under discussion and will need to be resolved.

Cabinet secretary, I am mindful of the time; we have 24 questions or so and we are on number 4.

I just want to say two sentences. I repeat what I have said to many key stakeholders, including the NFU Scotland and others with whom we work very closely, which is that the seven working groups to which I referred are considering their issues. I exhort all the main stakeholders in Scotland to contribute to the work of those committees. If they make written submissions, for example, we will guarantee that their views are fully considered.

Okay. Thank you.

Good morning, panel. It is likely that after March 2019 we will move into some form of implementation or transition period. What is the Scottish Government’s view on whether the UK should remain part of the common fisheries policy or the common agricultural policy during that transition period, or is the expectation that we will leave on the day of exit, as some have said?

I will answer that, because I have recently been discussing transition with a range of people. I think that the question is a false premise. If transition takes place, there is no doubt in the minds of the EU27 that transition means a continuation of the acquis—there is no other option. In those circumstances, it is not possible to say that we will leave this part but not that part. It is like the discussion that the UK Cabinet apparently had last week about tapering off the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Jurisdiction is like a light bulb; it is on or off—it cannot be tapered off.

It is not possible, if there is to be transition on the basis of continuation, that there would be a leaving of anything on 29 March. However, it is obvious that in areas such as agriculture and fisheries, where there are annual negotiations, it would be difficult if there was no annual negotiation.

I have heard recognition from other countries that some arrangements would need to be made, but to assert that we will leave these things on 29 March would jeopardise the Prime Minister’s stated intention to have a two-year transition period, because it is not pick and mix. Indeed, as I heard being said in Brussels in April, if there was to be transition—or, as the Prime Minister chooses to call it, implementation—that is continuation, because there is no third state that we can move to. I think that the question is a false premise.

I am keen that we remain in the EU, therefore we need a discussion about how those elements will affect things. The common agricultural policy can be developed and changed. I and many others have made no secret of the fact that we do not think that the CFP works for anybody and therefore major changes to the CFP are needed, but let us understand what transition is and what it is not.

Does the cabinet secretary want to add anything?

Mr Russell has given a pretty copperplate answer. I will just add that you cannot be in and out of a club at the same time.

My only other query is about the comment on participation in the CFP. There may be views on whether the status quo works, but wanting the CFP to change is not the same as not participating in it. Mr Russell, do you see any benefits in exiting the CFP as it currently stands, notwithstanding any changes that you want to see to it in the future?

I do not see any benefits in exiting the EU. There may be sectors—fishing is a very rare sector—where there are people who believe that there are enormous benefits to exiting. They do not all believe that there are enormous benefits, of course. In my constituency, the shellfish sector has separated itself from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation because it is extremely concerned about how the interests of the shellfish sector and of exporting have been ignored. There are disputes on these issues, but the words “baby” and “bathwater” spring to mind in these circumstances. We need to be very careful about where we are.

The important point—I stress this for Mr Greene, because it is very important—is that it is a false prospectus to say that in a period of transition or implementation, one can pick and choose what one does. That will not be possible and if that is what the UK Government seeks, it will not happen.

As far as fishing is concerned, the important point is that when we come out of the EU in March 2019, we will have control of our 200-mile limit. International law tells us that that is absolutely the consequence of becoming an independent fisheries state, as we will then be. There will be huge changes for the fishing industry. We can still live through some sort of transition period, but we will then take control out to 200 miles and I would argue that that is indisputable.

It is not indisputable in terms of the Prime Minister’s own statement, so Mr Chapman might want to take that up with the Prime Minister. We cannot have transition that departs from the acquis. It is axiomatic that we will continue not as a member but observing the acquis in every regard.

Special arrangements may be made for negotiations on quotas and a range of issues, but I think that it is selling a false prospectus to say that a bright new dawn will break on 30 March 2019 in which everything will be changed. There will be major disadvantages to every sector—I have no doubt about that. Mr Chapman and I will disagree on that, no doubt.

There is no doubt also that transition means that we will have the status quo for a period of time. If it does not mean that, there will not be transition. I agree with Mr Chapman to the extent that if the UK Government does not accept that or does not understand that, something dramatic will happen at 11 pm on 29 March—dramatic in the sense of disastrous.

11:15  

I will concentrate on the UK agriculture bill and the 25-year environment plan. I have two questions. I think that I probably know the answer to the first, but I will ask it anyway. Has the Scottish Government been involved in the development of the 25-year environment plan, the agriculture command paper and the UK agriculture bill?

Mr Ewing said that he was at a meeting of the Finance and Constitution Committee this morning. We know that that committee is considering a legislative consent memorandum on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Will a similar procedure be used for the agriculture and fisheries bills?

I will deal with the first question. Roseanna Cunningham is dealing with the environment matter, but I understand that there has been no consultation of our devolved Administration in respect of the 25-year plans for the environment and for food and farming. Recently, Mr Gove seems to have indicated that there will not be a 25-year plan for food and farming, so I am afraid that we are in the dark about the UK Government’s plans.

I would give Mr Gove 100 per cent for personal courtesy, but 0 per cent for outcomes. We have had a sprinkling of platitudes, the expression of fine sentiments and even several quotations from fine English poetry, but none of that pays the bills.

Our assumption is that legislative consent motions will be required on all bills that have devolved elements: clearly, agriculture has a devolved element. We already know that the trade bill will require a legislative consent motion—which, of course, we will not be willing to agree to unless we can resolve the issues in the bill. Those issues are broadly the same as the issues that need to be resolved in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is why I am indicating that success in the negotiations around that bill is the gatekeeper to a process that will allow legislative consent elsewhere. That might include the agriculture bill, but it is impossible to say for sure because we have not seen it.

Do you know what the timescales are for either bill?

Everything at Westminster keeps slipping, even though the clock is ticking. I think that the Government is now talking about introducing the agriculture bill in spring 2018; introduction at the turn of the year was previously discussed. Roughly the same timescale applies to the fisheries bill. The withdrawal bill will not go to the Lords until late January, or probably February. Everything is slipping.

The consultation on the fisheries bill was supposed to take place in October, but we are in the dark about that, too. Nothing has been issued.

What plans do you have to engage with the UK Government when the bills are introduced?

We automatically engage on any such legislation. I want to stress that the best way to draw up such legislation—I am sure that Fergus Ewing will agree—is to ensure that there is early contact on the details. That is true of fisheries, agriculture and trade. Early contact means that as a bill is being developed we can spot difficulties, see things that will not work and suggest things that will work. Such sharing of legislation has taken place ever since devolution. Not only when the Administrations were of the same political hue, but in the past 10 years, too, officials have shared draft legislation and there have been discussions about how to proceed that have got rid of any difficulties. It is clear that there will be problems if the UK Government will not share the bills before they are published.

I agree. The situation is frustrating. Good relationships are based on trust, and trust implies a willingness to share, under the usual rules of confidentiality, documents in draft form, whether they be bills or consultation papers, so that we can have a say and offer input. I am afraid that if the UK Government maintains the position that it appears to be adopting—that it will not share consultation documents, it will not share the agriculture bill and it will not share the fisheries bill—that is not consistent with a relationship that is based on trust. Farmers and fishermen want us to make progress and to have a trusting relationship.

We are working quite well with the UK Government on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, which we will consider next week. Given that, it is frustrating that the UK Government does not apply the same approach to the Brexit documents.

I will ask about the principles of agricultural policy going forward, rather than about the detail. Michael Gove agreed three principles for the future of agriculture: payment for provision of public goods, incentives for innovation and help with volatility. Do you agree with those principles?

I do not think that I would express them in quite in that way. My view, which I have expressed several times to the committee, is that the role that farmers play as producers of high-quality food and as custodians of the landscape should be better acknowledged and respected, and that farmers have environmental responsibilities in relation to ensuring diversity and the quality of water. Therefore, I would put things a bit differently.

Incidentally, I commend to committee members the recommendations of the national council of rural advisers, which really repay close reading. I also commend to you the report of the agricultural champions. The reports touch on everything that we are talking about and set out potential approaches that we might take—I am harking back to Mr Rumbles’s question.

The problem is that until we have reasonable clarity on the future funding arrangements and what powers we will have, it is not possible to embark on an exercise of architecture redesign. We do not know what powers we will have and we have no idea—absolutely none whatever—about funding. Fine sentiments are okay, but without clarity on funding and whether the Scottish Parliament will continue to enjoy full power over agriculture and fisheries, setting out a perfect set of principles is a bit of a theoretical exercise.

Cabinet secretary, I say with respect that I think that I made clear that I was not looking for detail. I was asking about the principles that will underpin your policy. What are they?

As I said, it is not possible to set out principles until we know whether we will continue to enjoy all powers over agriculture and fisheries, as we currently do.

Mr Barnes has shared with me the work that he has done with his counterpart officials in DEFRA, and it is my understanding that in those discussions no matter has been identified, in respect of agriculture, that would require to be reserved. I do not want to speak for the DEFRA officials, but I am advised that there is nothing to prevent the UK Government from confirming, right now, that we will continue to enjoy all powers over agriculture, including those that have rested with the EU. I am keen to look at the way forward and would be delighted to be able to do so, so it would be extremely helpful if Mr Gove were to provide the clarity that his officials appear to be providing to our officials.

Let me reiterate this. We are less than half way through our questions, and we are more than half way through the time that we have for them. The shorter you can make your answers, the better. I urge not just members but those who give evidence to look occasionally at me; I will try to give you the nod if I think that you need to wind up, so that I do not have to cut you off, which is rude and is something that I try to avoid doing.

I have twice said that I am looking not for the detail but for the vision on where the cabinet secretary’s priorities lie, and I am concerned that the cabinet secretary cannot answer. That worries me, especially because the area of the country that I cover, the Highlands and Islands, has done badly out of agricultural support in the past. I had hoped to be able to go away from the committee with some comfort for people in the Highlands and Islands that their needs will not be overlooked in the future, but I have no comfort for anyone.

With respect, I disagree with that characterisation of my views. Time and again, I have set out principles—

What are they?

I cannot go over all the principles that we have set out in numerous documents. For example, I refer members to the vision for agriculture that we set out in 2015, which encompassed sustainability, education, food and drink and public value, and I have already referred members to the two really useful pieces of work from the agriculture champions and the national council of rural advisers. All those help us to work together to formulate that vision, across the Parliament. I think that that is the best approach, and I will continue to follow it.

I will bring in Mike Rumbles.

As ever, I am trying to be constructive and helpful. What I was trying to say is that, whatever happens, either we will have continuation, to a degree, of the system that we have for Scotland, or we will take the opportunity to design a new system and feed that up to the United Kingdom Government. If we do not feed up to the UK Government what we want in Scotland, we are likely to get into a situation where the UK Government says “This is what we’ve designed,” and it will negotiate that with us. Is not it so much better to turn round and say what we want to do and what we want in agricultural support, and to try to get everybody to buy into that in a positive way?

We are already taking that approach in the discussions that officials are having. As I said, we are having discussions and debate, but we believe that we should not be dictated to, and that clarity around powers and funding is a sine qua non. I am quite sure that there will be time for discussion about the way ahead, but that will be only after the basics have been clarified. The trouble is that the basics have not been clarified.

Last week, I visited a monitor farm and I spoke at AgriScot. There is alarm and anxiety in the farming community about availability of labour, for example, to get Scotch lamb into the European markets, and about having enough people to pick the tatties and berries. More than half the people who work in the onshore fish processing sector are European Union nationals. Until the UK Government provides clarity—for example, in response to NFU Scotland about a seasonal workers scheme—we are in the dark and flying blind. We have brought forward a perfect policy but, frankly, it will not be relevant until we get answers on the basics.

I need to come back to the cabinet secretary about the fact that he continually says that he has no idea about funding or powers. I argue that that is not correct. I accept that there is still a debate to be had, but the message from Westminster is, nevertheless, that there will be no diminution of the powers of the Holyrood Parliament. Mr Gove has said that there will be the same level of funding until 2022. How can you therefore say that you have no idea of the position on either of those matters? I know that there are bits to be argued about, but you cannot sit there and say that you have no idea, because you have.

I have said quite clearly that there is, by definition, no idea whatsoever about what the funding will be post-Brexit. Promises were made that the funding would be at least the same after Brexit. However, no opinion has been expressed about what will happen post-Brexit, despite the fact that Brexit is close upon us. So far as the interim steps go, such assurances as have been given are obviously welcome, but they apply only to farm support and not to the pillar 2 funding that does not fall within the definition of farm support. It is a technicality, but it is a very important one for horizon 2020, LEADER, the regional fund, the social fund, research, community development and a host of other things.

I am afraid, Mr Chapman, that there has not been sufficient assurance offered about the period up to Brexit, and that we are flying completely blind about the situation post-Brexit.

All Parliament will have welcomed the announcement of the review of convergence payments. What will the timescale be and what do you believe should be the process of the review? A short answer would be appreciated.

The review was promised some years ago, so I am pleased that the UK Government has belatedly recognised that its promise must now be implemented. I discussed that with Mr Gove at a meeting a few weeks back and we agreed that we should, prior to Christmas, settle the remit of the review and the identity of the person or people who will conduct it. We also wish to set the timescale within which the review should be completed. I have put to Mr Gove proposals that I believe are sensible and reasonable. I was pleased that he said that he would work with us to settle the matter by Christmas.

11:30  

If, as one hopes for Scottish farming, we get a good result and the convergence payments are made available to Scotland, is the Scottish Government in a position to ensure that all the people who should have received such payments do so, including any backdated money?

I very much hope that the review will find that money that was intended for Scottish farmers and Scotland’s rural communities should go to those communities. That is the Scottish Government’s clear objective, and I hope that we will be in a position to implement it.

Plainly, the intention and original plan was to pay that money annually over the whole period from 2014 to, I think, 2021. The fact that the plan was subverted by the UK Government—which, in my view, wrongfully appropriated the money and used it for other purposes—might cause difficulties with regard to technicalities, and such matters will have to be looked at. However, as cabinet secretary, I am determined to ensure that those who are entitled to the money get it.

Farmers will welcome the indication that there is no intention to siphon off any money for other purposes.

Will the review of the convergence payments affect agricultural support budgets post-Brexit?

It has been agreed that the review should have two components: first, a look at what has happened in the past, and secondly, a look at what will happen in the future. My answer, therefore, is yes—the review should look at the fundamental issues in respect of distribution of funding in the UK, and it should reflect on the fact that, as I understand it, Scottish farmers will in 2019 receive just about the lowest payments per hectare of farmers in any EU state. In fact, Scottish farmers have been receiving less per hectare than farmers elsewhere in the UK: the review should look at that, too. I believe that that has been accepted in principle by Mr Gove. I undertake to come back to the committee as soon as we have clarity on those matters.

Good morning, panel. The Scottish Government has commissioned research on EU workers in various sectors. Are you able to outline what that research has shown and what the Scottish Government will be able to do post-Brexit for those who rely on seasonal non-UK workers?

Yes. A research project on farm workers in Scottish agriculture is being undertaken by a team of researchers at Scotland’s Rural College, and I can inform Mr Finnie that fieldwork has been completed and the data is being analysed. The team will present findings at the meeting of the cross-party group on rural policy on Tuesday 5 December, and final publication of the SRUC report is expected early next year.

I expect that the report will echo the concerns that were expressed to me recently at a meeting with fruit farmers; by people who work in abattoirs, on which I note that 95 per cent of the official veterinarians—those highly-qualified veterinary supervising officers—come from EU states; and by people in fish processing and tourism. There is a serious concern that many businesses in rural Scotland will be made unviable without the continued work of people from the EU. The fact that those people choose to come and work here is something that we should appreciate and welcome, and for which we should be grateful and thank them. The SRUC report will play a useful role in informing the debate.

This committee and other committees have heard evidence again and again about various industries and sectors being worried about the impact of Brexit on EU labour. How might the various sectors retain access to such labour after Brexit?

I will make a brief comment and then pass over to Mr Russell.

Plainly, one of the benefits of being in the EU has been free movement of people. It has been great for people who have wanted to choose which country to work in—perhaps there has not been enough recognition of the fact of having personal freedom to enjoy that—and it has been great for Scotland to have had the benefit of their work. I do not think that any parts of the rural economy will be unaffected by the move.

Therefore, I hope—I think that this hope is shared by everybody, regardless of their political persuasion—that we can get some early clarity from the UK Government on the matter. Recommendations for a seasonal workers scheme have been made by the NFUS, and they are certainly worthy of consideration. Above all, I hope that an early decision is made by the UK Government, because workers from the EU are absolutely essential to the economy and to communities in rural Scotland.

I refer the member to the evidence that the Scottish Government submitted to the Migration Advisory Committee a few weeks ago, on which my colleague Dr Alasdair Allan has been leading. It shows the Scottish economy’s dependence on inward migration, which is pretty substantial. There is no natural regeneration of the population in Scotland, unlike south of the border, where about 40 per cent of population growth comes from regeneration. That does not happen here. Unless we have people coming in, the population becomes static and then begins to decline.

The situation in rural areas is quite stark. Rhoda Grant and Gail Ross will know that, at the most recent convention of the Highlands and Islands, the leader of Highland Council presented some evidence that showed that about 20 per cent of the Highlands and Islands workforce is due to retire over the next period. We are talking about 80,000 people. It is literally impossible to find 80,000 people from the natural regeneration of the population, so we face a continuing decline in the Highlands and Islands population. In Argyll and Bute, the extremely rural constituency that I represent, that means continuing and accelerating depopulation, particularly in the most rural parts of the constituency. That will have a huge effect on a range of activities, including agriculture and aquaculture.

We must find a way to resolve that situation. The only way to resolve it is by having free movement. Migration policy is set up in such a way that even a seasonal agricultural workers scheme would not provide a solution. There will be inhibitions to that.

Members would benefit from reading the report that the British Irish Chamber of Commerce published on Monday. It is a very sane and sensible organisation that is doing a huge amount of work on the vast amount of trade that takes place between the UK and Ireland. It indicated that only membership of the customs union and the continuation of the single market arrangements will produce the conditions that will allow that trade to continue. I am quite sure that there are members of the committee who will dismiss things that the Scottish Government says as the ravings of mad nats, but the people in the British Irish Chamber of Commerce are not mad nats in any sense; they are sensible, sober businessmen. In looking at the situation, they have come to the inevitable conclusion that exit from the EU will mean economic damage, particularly in terms of accessibility to labour. Almost every sector in Scotland is now saying the same thing. That point of view needs to be heard.

You touched on the subject of my follow-up question: the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. Could you expand on your views on that?

The seasonal workers scheme was much criticised while it was in operation. It produced a result, but it was often focused on student labour. The short-term nature of the stay of those who came was difficult. Agriculture—horticulture, in particular—has changed substantially since then. There is almost year-round activity, and the volumes are substantially greater. The reinstatement of the scheme is unlikely to attract the people who presently come. That is partly because there is a shortage of agricultural labour across Europe. Germany has recently licensed up to 10,000 Ukrainians to come into the country to work in agriculture, because there is a shortage of agricultural labour.

Scotland has been able to attract people who come for the longer term and who—even though they might go home regularly—are involved in other activities. In Angus, for example, people who work in soft fruits might also work in fish factories and fish processing. There is a dynamic pattern of activity that will be taken away if free movement is lost. It is not at all clear where substitutes for those workers will come from. There are not nearly enough people in Scotland to substitute for that dynamic labour force. How we will get people to come here from elsewhere is a moot point.

It is also important to make the point that the fall in the value of the currency has meant that many people are not willing to come. They think that it is no longer worth it to the same extent and that is bad news for rural Scotland.

Before I bring in the cabinet secretary, I know that the deputy convener has a question that he might like to answer.

The National Council of Rural Advisers published an interim report this morning that makes a number of recommendations. The first recommendation on page 3 relates to how we

“attract and retain home grown talent”,

which the minister has just touched on. I support the recommendations to

“base more businesses in rural areas”,

Brexit or no Brexit, and to

“build on talent attraction work”.

How do you propose to take forward the recommendations in the report?

I was about to quote from that section in response to the previous question. The NCRA makes a number of interesting points that we have not heard in the debate previously and I would like to share a couple of them:

“A smaller labour pool will increase competition and result in increased costs to business as wages rise. Micro/family owned businesses that are so dominant in more remote, rural areas could find it difficult to compete with their larger counterparts”—

because there is a smaller pool of labour

As Gail Ross said, the council has outlined a series of recommended approaches under the headings of “Labour & Skills”, “Trade”, “Funding”, and “Legislation & Standards”, and they are all worthy of consideration. However, that is an interim report, as is that of the agricultural champions. I reiterate that we will consider their advice, as we consider advice from all sources, including stakeholders with whom we work closely. We hope to come to a view in the spring as to the best approach to be followed, and to inform that by listening carefully to the advice that we are given. We should certainly consider how we can attract and retain home-grown talent. The NCRA says that we should

“Promote remote rural areas as centres of excellence for ‘non-traditional’ rural sectors ... Overcome connectivity barriers”—

whether they be physical or virtual—

“Promote opportunities for people to work remotely and base more businesses in rural areas ... Introduce greater flexibility in immigration rules to recognise that self-employed businesses in rural areas operated by non-UK nationals provide essential services”,

and generally ensure that the necessary talent exists to maintain the vibrancy of the rural economy in Scotland.

During the EU referendum campaign, fishermen were promised that fisheries would come back under the control of the UK and everything would be rosy in the garden—or in the sea. I believe that we will be sold out again. On 1 November 2017, in reply to Baroness Wilcox, Michael Gove said that the nature of the relationship between the UK and the EU

“will probably not change dramatically the day after Brexit.”

How do you see the relationship between the UK and the EU on fisheries post-Brexit? What would you like to see in the UK fisheries bill? When do you expect the bill? Do you think that fishermen will be sold out again?

Upon leaving the EU, the UK, as a coastal state, will assume full control of its exclusive economic zone, in line with international law and the rights and responsibilities that that entails. There is an acceptance on the part of both Governments that fishing needs to be sustainable and stocks need to be measured by size. There must then be conservation and no overfishing. The EU’s total allowable catch method is a sensible way to deal with that and it is also recognised as such by almost everybody involved. There is no reason why the coastal status negotiations should be carried out exclusively by the UK Government in future. Scotland is the leader in fishing, given the value of the industry and its contribution to the economy and the wealth of our fishing grounds. We should, therefore, be offered the opportunity to play the lead role in negotiations within a UK coastal state model following Brexit. We should have that voice where our interests are at stake.

I am looking forward to an answer to the question that I have put to Mr Gove and his ministerial team, which is:

“Can you confirm that access to our exclusive economic zone will not be bartered away to achieve other aims in the EU Brexit negotiations?”

There has been no answer to that question, but there should be.

Before I bring Richard Lyle back in, I will briefly bring in Stewart Stevenson.

11:45  

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned conservation and the need to manage stocks. Given that the UK has been a member of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea since 1902, is it your expectation that the scientific environment that leads policy in this area will remain unchanged, whatever the future relationship with the EU might be?

I cannot speak for the UK Government, nor, I suspect, would it wish me to. I cannot say what its plans are, what is in its mind or what its views might be. However, I have set out briefly the principled approach that we should take. We will continue in ICES. That is the right approach and I hope and expect that the UK will, generally speaking, follow that approach, as it is in the interests of the environment and the long-term interests of the fishing sector, too.

To be brief, fishermens’ representative bodies seem to have a high expectation that access to UK waters will be managed in a radically different way post-Brexit. What is your view on that, and what is your view on Scotland’s exclusive economic zone?

Obviously, we wish to see Scottish fishing succeed as best it can. Indeed, I was pleased to play a part in the December negotiations last year, which I think achieved a successful outcome for the fishing sector and one that was very much welcomed by the fishing representatives with whom I worked in Brussels last December.

The same approach will be applied again this December, in a couple of weeks’ time. We will have an opportunity to debate that in Parliament, traditionally before the European negotiations, in order to inform our approach to those negotiations.

The guiding principle will be sustainability in the setting of quotas, in line with scientific advice. Although our relationship with the EU might change, our commitment to working with other European nations to achieve the best outcomes will not.

Peter Chapman, do you want to follow up on that before your next question?

The UK fisheries bill will allow us to control fishing within a 200-mile EEZ. The fishing community sees great opportunities in that. Given that only 40 per cent of the fish in our EEZ is caught by UK or Scottish boats, compared to the 85 per cent that the Norwegians catch within their EEZ, do you agree that the bill will offer a sea of opportunity for our fishermen?

Mr Chapman mentions the relationship with Norway. It is fair to say that the outcome of the negotiations with Norway have been deeply concerning to our fishing sector in many respects. It is not just about the EU; it is a very complex pattern.

The question arises as to what happens when Brexit occurs, if it occurs, in March 2019, which will be in the middle of a year for the purposes of the CFP. In recognising the calendar year basis of fishing negotiations, it would seem sensible to agree a rolling over of arrangements at the December council in 2018, to include the existing access arrangements for the remainder of the 2019 calendar year, assuming that the final package is acceptable to us. There is much about which we disagree with Mr Gove, but he indicated on 6 November that he would support that position.

The sea of opportunity is something that fishermen wish to see. We are concerned that it may be traded away and bartered with in other EU negotiations. We have asked for clarification that that will not happen.

I work very closely with the SFF and all fishing organisations, including those that are not aligned with the SFF. We are seeking, as we always do, to get the best possible outcome for all our fishing.

Okay, I accept that. Given that scientific data will always be very important as far as fishing and fisheries are concerned, will Marine Scotland continue to collect and share scientific data on fisheries post-Brexit? How will that be funded?

Yes, Marine Scotland will continue the good work that it does in that respect.

As to the overall funding issues, one of the many uncertainties about Brexit—and I raised this one specifically with Mr Gove—is the future of the EMFF. From memory, that has accounted for about £80 million of benefits over the period of the existing programme. It is of immense benefit for practical things such as upgrading ports and harbours and the provision of facilities such as ice-making and factory equipment to help fish processors to update and improve their profitability and efficiency. The fund is also of benefit to research on things such as better tackling fish disease, which is important to the aquaculture sector. In short, I have asked Mr Gove what will replace the EMFF post-Brexit and, again, I am very keen to hear what the answer is.

My question is about holding Government to account. In evidence to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee on 1 November, Michael Gove talked about the creation of a commission that would do that job. He said that it would have

“the power potentially to fine or otherwise hold Government to account and certainly to hold public bodies other than Government to account.”

He went on to talk about an example relating to the common fisheries policy. He also said that he hoped, but could not guarantee that a body would be in place on Brexit day. What is your view on what should replace the European Commission and the European Court of Justice in holding the UK Government and devolved Administrations to account?

I am always slightly worried about the interpretation that is put on the European Court of Justice, particularly by UK ministers. Let us be clear that the role of the European Court of Justice is not simply to hold to account national Governments; its role is often to answer inquiries about the law and to protect citizens who come demanding redress. Famous European cases have indicated that there is an ability to say to the European Court of Justice that a legislative right that should be fulfilled is not being fulfilled.

I fail to understand the obsession with the ECJ among certain ranks of the Tory party. The ECJ has performed a positive role in ensuring that citizens can be defended, and the attempt to recreate it or a few of its functions in watered-down form and in an unspecified way is unsatisfactory. My view is that the role of the ECJ has been vital in, for example, environmental matters and it should continue to be recognised in that way. It is part of the folly of Brexit that, in throwing that out, we are throwing out opportunities for citizens to be protected, to get what they are due and to ensure that there is action that provides that. I do not honestly believe that Michael Gove wishes that to happen, and therefore those things being talked about are window dressing.

If no organisation is set up, there might be a governance gap, which you talked about earlier. I am not quite sure what a deep dive is, but I wonder whether that featured in your diving, deep or otherwise.

We have with us people who have been down and seen the sea bed.

How do you see the Scottish Government being held to account for matters such as future farm payments?

Continuing membership of the single market, particularly in the customs union and possibly through the European Economic Area route, creates opportunities for decisions to be reached under the European Free Trade Association Court. The EFTA Court recognises judgments of the European Court of Justice, so there is an interrelationship. There are structures that work well and that are comprehensive. I would much rather that we accepted that than that we attempted to invent things that would inevitably involve watering down. In the UK Government’s view, it will not be possible for us to create those structures specifically in Scotland.

The best solution is not to be involved in this process, which is a wrong process. The next best solution, which is not as good, is to remain in the single market and the customs union. In those circumstances, the structures exist and things can be enforced in a way that benefits individual citizens.

Were we to have neither of those options, then what?

I do not accept that either of those options is impossible—I am sorry, but I just do not accept that. The evidence of the past year is that there is a growing realisation that the route that abandons the single market and the customs union is the wrong route. We have gone from a situation, 12 months ago, in which the UK Government was determined to have no transition or implementation to a position in which it accepts the need for that. We see gradual progress, but we need to argue for it.

We have already raised the issue of the Irish border. In the circumstances, the only feasible solution is the one that the Irish Government and the Scottish Government are talking about; therefore, I do not accept a thesis that says that those options are not possible. If they are not possible, there will be an enormous diminution in the protection that will be afforded to individual citizens in a range of ways, not simply with regard to ensuring that the Government is held to account but with regard to defending people’s basic rights, which have been defended by the fact that we are part of the EU. Those rights will be put at risk and will be eroded—I have no doubt of that.

As the question was on farm payments, it would be fair to allow Fergus Ewing to respond.

In the scenario that Brexit occurs in March 2019, the first question is, will we be in or out of the CAP? We are unclear about that because of Ian Duncan’s remarks, which we discussed earlier, and Michael Gove’s lack of clarification. It is for the UK Government to say what its proposals are, following the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence, in which she said that there will be a transition. If we were to be out of the CAP at the beginning of the transition period, there would arise the question of who would be responsible for oversight and implementation of the compliance and disallowance provisions of the CAP. The UK Government has not said anything whatsoever about that. That is another area in which we are completely in the dark.

We alluded to Mr Gove’s evidence earlier. To what extent does scrutiny of any future arrangements feature in discussions between the Governments?

It features to a limited extent, in essence, because there is no detail or flesh on the bones of any proposals. To hark back briefly to the withdrawal bill, we are the ones who said that there needs to be further scrutiny of ministers’ decisions. As you know, as part of negotiations that have taken place in the Parliament, I have offered to consider how we could put that scrutiny in place. However, that proposal is being resisted by the UK Government at Westminster. We are conscious of issues around accountability, but the UK Government appears to be avoiding even its accountability to the House of Commons.

There are three questions left. I would dearly like to get them in within the timescale, so I urge short answers.

Over the past few weeks, we have heard from certain quarters that no deal is better than a bad deal. In your opinion, what are the implications of having no deal?

No deal is a deal. I am sorry to be so theological with regard to the complexity of the issue, but that is the case. No deal means accepting the worst of all possible deals, which is that everything just stops. Actually, there is a step beyond that—nobody knowing whether or not there is a deal, which is what would happen if the talks stalled, nothing took place and we ambled towards the end of March 2019 with no idea of what was going to happen. That is a potential outcome.

In a sense, having no deal is unthinkable, because it is impossible to work out what would happen. Look at the border situation in Ireland. There would automatically be the hardest of borders, because there are two different customs regimes. The arrangements for airlines would lapse and we would have to deliberately opt back into them.

There is a great deal of complexity to this matter. Over the past 45 years, EU laws and regulation and so on have meshed together, and the idea that, at a particular moment, all of that can be broken does not make sense. The EU can sail on—it continues—but what can we put in place, particularly if, for example, the withdrawal bill has not been passed? What would happen in those circumstances? We simply do not know. Of course, we will prepare ourselves, in a sense, by trying to think the unthinkable, but it is an incredibly difficult thing to do, because we are looking at a set of circumstances in which a lot of the underpinning regulatory structures would simply no longer have effect. We could pass emergency legislation that would put them back into effect, but that would be tricky to do, because there are bits of them that we could not operate.

Having no deal is a nonsensical proposition. The fact that the UK Government is talking about it and there are those in the UK Government who want it is very scary indeed.

Because of time constraints, I ask that only one minister answer each of the next questions.

12:00  

My question is for Mike Russell. You have come across as being constructive in all your dealings across portfolios with the UK Government. Like you, we do not want to be where we are, but we are where we are. As a general principle, rather than the different departments across the Scottish Government waiting to find out what the UK Government wants, would it not be better philosophically, politically and practically for us to design our own systems across the board and put those forward?

I see where you are coming from, Mr Rumbles. The portfolio cabinet secretaries have the responsibility for progressing their issues; I simply advise and work with them and interface with the UK Government. In this instance, the lack of information and the strong likelihood that we will have a common framework—I refer you to the list of 111 powers—means that we are endeavouring to construct that framework. That is the right way forward. It may be that, if there is such a framework, we will be able to accelerate the process of developing those things that are not to be dealt with within it—there will be things that can be dealt with outwith it. However, we will need to see what the framework looks like first.

Much has been said today about the retention of responsibilities and powers by the devolved Administrations. On the assumption that the Scottish Government will be responsible for the delivery of some form of agricultural subsidy or payment, what commitments will the cabinet secretary give to Scottish farmers that all payments will be made on time and in full?

I have discussed that matter many times with you all in this room. I assure you that my top priority remains the proper administration of pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP payment system. I am pleased that, over the past couple of months, we have made considerable progress by paying out to the Scottish farming community loans at the rate of 90 per cent. I am also pleased that we were able to do so slightly earlier than I had set out.

I have set out a clear schedule for when farmers, crofters and others should expect to receive various payments. That has been welcomed across the sector, but we are not complacent. This morning, I had a weekly conference call with my officials. I assure Mr Greene that I am doing my best to ensure that the payments are made in accordance with the scheme rules and that loans will be used if necessary in respect of LFASS next year. I am quite sure that I will be sitting in this seat and discussing the topic again before too many weeks have elapsed.

I thank the cabinet secretary, the minister, Ian Davidson, David Barnes and Mike Palmer for giving evidence to us this morning.

I ask that committee members stay in place while I briefly suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses.

12:03 Meeting suspended.  

12:07 On resuming—