 Welcome to the public to the committee's 27th meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Can I please ask everyone to make sure that their mobile phones are on silent? No apologies have been received but John Finnie is away from the meeting attending a separate committee meeting and may return. We are moving now to a gender item 5 which is an agriculture update. I would like to invite members to declare any relevant I would like to start off by declaring that I am a partner in a farming partnership, the details of which are disclosed on my register of interests. Peter. I will make a similar declaration in that I am a partner in the farming business as well. Stuart. I am the part owner of a very small registered agricultural holding. This session forms part of our regular evidence taking on agricultural matters part of the committee's area of scrutiny. I would like to welcome from the Scottish Government, Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy. I would like to welcome Eleanor Mitchell, the director of agriculture and rural economy. David Barnes, the national advisor on agricultural policy, in Davidson, the head of agricultural policy division and Douglas Petrie, the head of area offices and the head of agricultural profession. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to invite you to give a short opening statement. I would like to say before we go into the questions that this is going to be a tight session, there are a lot of questions and I would encourage everyone to keep their comments as short as possible so I could make sure that everyone gets a chance to answer the questions that they want to and for the Cabinet Secretary to give answers to those. Cabinet Secretary, you have three minutes. Thank you, convener. Good morning to everybody. I welcome the opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics today. I will focus my initial remarks on just two issues, delivery progress and Brexit, and I hope to cover in Q&A the recent instance of BSE. I have kept the committee fully appraised of progress with cap payments through our regular monthly updates, convener, and I am pleased that we have achieved our target of making 95 per cent of pillar 1 payments by the end of June. We have now completed 99.6 per cent of basic payment and greening payments, 99 per cent of Scottish suckler beef support scheme payments, and 96.4 per cent of Scottish upland sheep support scheme payments. We started pillar 2 payments, which of course do not have a regulatory deadline in May and June this year, three months ahead of last year. We have now paid over 90 per cent of all pillar 2 claims, completed almost 95 per cent of payments for LFAS, 89 per cent for beef efficiency and 97 per cent for our land manager options scheme. We are working hard to pay the vast majority of all outstanding pillar 2 claims by the end of the year. When the farming industry helped, convener, to support them through the impact of the exceptional weather this year, our response was, I hope, swift and effective. We made BPS loans available from 5 October three weeks earlier than when we started to do so last year and well before the cap payment window opens on 1 December. We were the first administration in the UK to get that vital cash flowing into the farming industry and the wider rural economy. We have now made 2,018 basic payment loan offers to 17,428 customers, which is 99 per cent of eligible applicants, providing up to 90 per cent of their anticipated cap payments—pillar 1 payments—and £341.9 million in total. We have made loan payments to 12,653 businesses injecting over £294 million into the rural economy. We are absolutely focused on delivering practical support for our rural businesses. We are always looking to do better, convener, we are not complacent, but we are building on a year of real delivery progress. Turning to Brexit, the issues are hugely important to farming. There is no doubt about that. The Scottish Government's overall position remains that staying within the EU is the best option for Scotland and that, we believe, the whole of the UK. Failing that, we believe that the UK and Scotland must remain inside the single market and the customs union. Nonetheless, as a responsible Government, we are working hard to prepare for Brexit. We are working to address the technical legislative deficiencies that would present themselves when bringing EU law across into UK law in the event of a no deal. We have worked constructively with DEFRA on this, as the Scottish Government has committed to do. The process of notifying parliamentary committees about relevant statutory instruments is under way. The Secretary of State will ensure that support schemes and payments in their current form can continue after next March, even in the event of a no deal. Through our stability and simplicity document, I outlined a detailed policy position up to 2024. By sticking with the main elements of current farm policy during that period, we will give farmers and crofters stability in a time of unprecedented change. In the second half of the period from 2021, we will simplify and improve farm support payments to make them even more effective. Our current assessment is that we would need new powers through primary legislation, not by next March, convener, but from 2021 onwards. I see the pencil being wagged furiously, and I accept the signal. There was more to say in the statement, but perhaps, convener, I can just leave it there and invite questions from your colleagues. I thank the cabinet secretary for his observance. The first question is going to be from Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Cabinet Secretary. You mentioned BSE, and get right in there. I mean, we have already had a statement on BSE, so it doesn't need to be a lengthy discussion, I believe, but I'm particularly interested in the... I believe there's four cohorts, four offspring of the cow concerned. Where are we with the investigations into whether they are infected or not? My colleague Marie Gougeon did, as Mr Chapman knows, give a statement. The news is hugely disappointing to have the confirmed case in BSE in Aberdeenshire. There is no risk to consumer health, and the Scottish Government have activated plans to protect food safety and, of course, our valuable farming industry. Regarding the investigation, I know that these things properly take time, and that that is simply the case. I wonder if perhaps Eleanor Mitchell could bring us up to date in relation to any current relevant information, convener? The valuations of the animals affected were completed on the farm on 26 October. Yesterday, the three cohort animals and the one offspring were culled on the farm. The carcasses had been transported for sampling and disposal to Dumfries. If the screening results will be available at the end of this week, if any of them proved positive, then those carcasses were then transported to the APHE Webridge offices for further testing. I think that that is good. We are absolutely sure that there are no other potential animals that could be infected. It is just the immediate offspring of this particular cow, and we know exactly where they are and they have now been taken out. I think that I am satisfied with that response. Thank you. We will move on to our next question, if I may. Mike Rumbles, I believe that that is you. In June, the cabinet secretary published his Stability and Simplicity proposals for the consultation for rural funding, the transition period up to 2024. I appreciate that in a very unstable period in an unstable world that is useful to have stability for our farming industry. I think that the committee is interested to know what the cabinet secretary's vision is for the future of Scottish agricultural financial support post the transition period. It is really what we would like to know is what he believes would be useful if he is still cabinet secretary in that long period of time ahead. What his vision is, how would he like to see the future of agricultural support in Scotland? First of all, the Stability and Simplicity paper does offer what it says on the tin, stability and simplicity. Although we have not completed the analysis of the responses, we have 137. We have had a huge range of very interesting responses. Of course, those will be available to everyone to examine and make very good reading. First of all, we have had a consultation out of respect to the 137. We need to treat their responses very seriously. I have spoken to some of the farmers, for example, individually who have replied. Secondly, I think that the fact that our document is a plan for five years means that it actually is the only plan in the UK. With respect, the document Health and Harmony only makes one thing clear that direct payments will cease. We believe in 2728, that is what the UK has said. I believe that direct payments will continue to be required and that they are justified. Moreover, I believe that the farmers already provide public good. Health and Harmony presupposes that they do not provide public good, but they should do so. No, they already do, and they already provide public good in many ways, but principally in two main ways. One, in producing high-quality food, which I believe is the primary role of farming. In Scotland, that is what farmers do. There is scotch beef and scotch lamb. The livestock farming is renowned throughout the world for quality. Secondly, in looking after the landscape, the custodians of the countryside, doing the work, not writing about it, theorising about it, writing views and polemics about it, but actually doing it every day, shaping the landscape so that it looks as it does and it is the centre of our tourism industry. My vision is that farmers should be allowed and permitted and enabled and supported by the public and respected and valued and appreciated for what they do, not exposed to the line that, well, will support you for a wee bit. We have not quite said how. We have only given any details to £222 and £220 for some pillar 2 payments and we are going to cut off all your money by £227. That does not seem to be a particularly inspiring vision to me. I was just wondering that I am not so much focussing on the transition period of 2024 and I have thoroughly understand what the minister is trying to achieve with that. I am just really trying to get at it and he said some very good things about support for our farming industry. I am actually trying to dig a little bit more deeply how it could be him, it could be a successor minister, but if it was him, you are on the chair now, in practical terms, what was your vision post 2022? What would you like to see? Is this an opportunity to do things differently than we are doing at the moment? Obviously, the transition period is just that and we are going to stick with the forms that we have. What would you like to see in the Scottish landscape after 2024 that would be completely different than we have it now? Because surely we have inherited this from the European Union and we have had to obey the European Union rules. Like it or not, we are going to be free to do our own rules, I would hope. I am just trying to get at what he would like to see post 2022. It is a fair question, I accept that, convener. I hope that I have set out in response to my vision for the future in general terms. Mr Rumbles asked what can we do better. I firmly believe that farmers are doing things extremely well in many respects at the moment, but it is clear that there is room for progress in some farms and some farming practices. In general, I think that we all want to see that more practical greening measures are taken. I think that it is also clear that in our stability and simplicity consultation we asked for views to simplify and improve the current regime. We postulated that we would seek to do that in the second part of the five years. We are not just waiting until 224, Mr Rumbles, we are envisaging that after the transition period of a couple of years we would then move to pilot new schemes to try out new systems. Yesterday evening, as you know, we had a debate about the problems and the difficulties associated with export of live animals. I think that there is a consensus in Parliament that we would like to try to encourage difficult, though they are financially, as I understand, from comments that were made during the debate by farmers amongst the MSPs who spoke. That is one area where I hope that pilot schemes could be considered in some measure of support. That is just to take one example. I also think that there is a wider series of questions that the National Council of Rural Advisers have set out in their paper that we need to consider. They are looking to more focus on rural, more appreciation of rural, what rural is about, looking at things in an integrated development fashion, with farmers very much at the heart of that. I also want to encourage, as the NFU does, more productivity and more diversification. It is invidious to mention successful farming businesses in a single one or two out, because there are so many. We can all think of businesses that have started off from one family farm. There are now household names. I want to see and encourage and enable and facilitate the young male and female farmers who are now able to think in a business way and encourage them. Incidentally, the new south of Scotland enterprise will come to debate that separately, but it is an opportunity, perhaps, because of the real importance for farming and forestry in south of Scotland to perhaps try out things in a way that would be consistent with Mr Rumble's direction. I would also like to see us further enhance the excellent marketing activities that are deployed by QMS, by the Scottish Development International, with our in-market specialists, who, for example, have facilitated market for export of beef to Berlin and Germany, through one person representing Scotland and that company, whose efforts have been tremendously successful. I would like to make sure that the advice available, all the various advice available from the Scottish SRUC, from the business gateway and from others is of the top quality, and that we can integrate more agri forestry to a better extent. Finally, and this is a long wish list, you've been right, I'm quite ambitious for Scotland, I make no apologies for that. I would like to see post Brexit in particular and a freeing up of opportunities for farmers to use the land in terms of planning. I would like to see more permitted developments for farmers to be able to use their initiative, to diversify, to use their land to the best sustainable effect. I hope that that's enough to begin on with, convener. Before I come back to you, Stuart, I'd like to come in with, I think, you've got some more questions, Stuart. I just wondered if the cabinet secretary could confirm that, with our coming out of the common agricultural policy, which is, of course, driven by the diverse needs of the north of Finland and the south of Crete, that we might avoid things like the three-crop rule, which wasn't appropriate for Scotland. We might look at the way in which we use water. There's a huge shortage of water in the Mediterranean areas, whereas, if anything, we might have a superfluitive. Therefore, there are some practical things that the Government has previously referred to, that we might see being tackled in a different way as to sink from just the providing finance. I entirely agree with his points about the three-crop rule, and I'd point to the good work that was led by Professor Russell Griggs and the Greening Committee. That was a committee that brought together farmers and NGOs, and they reached a conclusion, and that's going ahead in some of the instances. The use of water, well, it's a bigger topic, but although not a farmer myself, and I bow to the knowledge in this committee from the discussions that I've had, effective drainage of farmland is something that is mentioned again and again as an absolute essential of productive land. It's good to have an opportunity just to mention that fact. In terms of the provision of support and the rationale therefor, I do think that because livestock production has gotten this so important that we have to address ourselves to the need for financial support to be made available to ensure that we can continue to support high-quality, environmentally sound livestock production in Scotland. That, with respect, seems to be a fundamental difference between the Scottish Government and the UK Government's proposals. Minister, you said that you're still analysing and want to be fair to the respondents to the consultation, the stability and simplicity consultation, but could you tell us when the final plans for the period of 2024 we might expect them to be published? I can say we're analysing the responses. I'd hope to bring the process of analysis to a conclusion as soon as possible. I can also say that we promise a simplification body that will take things forward, and we're in touch with a number of individuals about that, so I would hope to make an announcement. I don't want to make a time limit because I know that that will then be a noose around my neck, but I know, perish the thought, who would ever do that. I want to do this as quickly as possible, but we have to give respect to the fact that we've had 137 very serious proposals, some of which have been extremely well thought through. I think that there really are a number of tools in the box, and I hope that when members can have the opportunity to study them for themselves, they will see that the public have sent in some really excellent suggestions, which we will be able to incorporate. I would hope that it would be as soon as possible to answer Mr Rumble's question. I have been asked to pursue this next one, and that's my last question, I think. Under pillar 2 in the consultation, you do say that many schemes will continue, and you've confirmed that, that's your hope. Which schemes do you plan to close, if any, and if you do plan to close them, and why would you be thinking of closing them? I don't have any plan to close particular schemes. I think that the whole idea of stability is that we keep the existing schemes going so far as we can financially, and we have to look carefully at the figures. But there are obviously some that we regard as our priority. One priority very clearly for Scotland is the ELFAS scheme, and we've set out in our stability and simplicity consultation. Can I just say that ELFAS is actually going to come up in a minute? If I could divert you from that subject so that I don't upset the deputy convener in due course. I don't want to upset anybody and never punish the thought. Other questions, if I may, just with this, and I'll come back to Mike on that if he wants to, but Colin, you wanted to ask a specific question, and then I'm going to come to Peter. You've also proposed, Cabinet Secretary, a simplification task force. I think that you're keen to know when full details of that will be announced, but just on the general point, that will have quite a narrow remit, that particular task force that you've had, and you've described some of them today in various different groups that you've appointed, agriculture champions, the Griggs Greening Group, the National Council of Rural Advisers. It seems to me that all those groups and also the simplification task force don't have a very specific remit to report on what future farm payments should look like. Is there not a case for a more encompassing task force that brings all the stakeholders together and looks in detail specifically at what future payment should look like in reports on that, rather than all those various bodies and what is probably going to be quite a narrow remit for the simplification task force, shouldn't you have a more all-encompassing task force that looks at all those issues and reports in detail exactly what we believe that future farm payments should look like? Well, our proposal, and I can say it's had broad support in the consultation responses, has been we provide a period of stability where the existing payment schemes continue. I think that's actually what most farmers and land managers want. We're really talking about the period of post-24, as Mr Rumbles has rightly said. And in respect of that, I do agree that a focused effort involving all relevant people and stakeholders is something that is worthy of consideration and will probably be required in due course. But the work that the NCRA have done, the agri champions have done, the former at the behest of the Scottish Parliament was actually for a very specific remit and they have discharged that remit and they have looked at matters in principle and they have advised us about the principles around which we should plan future support. So that was the initial stage. The simplification task force has got a more specific remit and incidentally, I mean I've chaired a lot of task forces, the clearer the remit, the more the likelihood that you get a set of answers that can then be turned into action rather than a very vague remit, which takes you nowhere. So in response to the question about timescale, we expect to complete the analysis of the simplification responses, Mr Smith, by mid-November. We'll then prioritise and bring the findings to the external stakeholder panel and the first meeting of the panel is planned to be at the end of November, beginning of December. So prior to that, we would make an announcement of those on the panel. Ian and Douglas here, my officials, are leading the initial simplification work and they may wish, if we have time, convener, perhaps either Ian or Douglas could add to that because it is a very important issue. Can I, Cabinet Secretary, just before they do, I think that Colin wants to focus on one area that might then allow you to bring them in? I think that the detail on the simplification task would be good, but I encourage the cabinet secretary to seem to be saying that there is a view that a wider remit, a wider task force, looking at that future support, not immediate support, future support is something that he is seriously considering. On that issue, you have talked about a motion coming before Parliament to bring effectively all parties together to look at, I suppose, those wider issues. Do you know when that is likely to happen because that may be a forum for putting the detail on establishing this task force? I have committed to debate, you are absolutely right, and I think that debate should take place before the end of the year. I have to say, and this is not a plea of mitigation, but the huge volume of work which the clerk will be aware about statutory instruments to prepare for a no-deal Brexit has been taking an enormous amount of time and I expect it will take an awful lot of Parliament's time as a whole, but be that as it may, we are committed to debate before the turn of the year. I am not saying that I think necessarily that a grouping along the lines that Mr Smith is suggesting should be formed immediately. I think that there is a sequential nature about how we proceed here. I do think that certain basics need to be established. For example, will the UK commit, as they did promise in the pre-Brexit, pre-referendum and as a Brexit, indeed pledge, campaigning pledge, will rural funding for rural Britain be matched at the levels that we came to expect from Europe, because without some assurances to whether that's the case, it's difficult really to plan post-24. What we know is that direct payments are to be scrapped. The Treasury have been very, very abrupt about that. I mean, there's no jubiety about this. Go and speak to Liz Truss. Farmers are not to get payments from 227. Deffra put a paper out in 2005, indicating that this was the direction of travel, so this is not new. I think, convener, that before we set up an elaborate process of deciding what schemes we have, we kind of need to know what the overall commitment to rural Britain is, because you can't make a plan without knowing whether you have to spend £100 or £10 or £50. I mean, we need to have some co-operation. I've asked Mr Gove if he'd be kind enough to clarify this on the Record and Hansard in the course of the UK agriculture bill. So I'm certainly willing to co-operate with Mr Smith's suggestion, but I'm not persuaded yet that we're quite at the position where we've got enough information usefully to initiate that work. Peter, you understood a question. Yeah, I mean, it follows on, I think, from Colin's about simplification. It's a particularly focused point, but it's one that creates a lot of grief in the farming community. And this is the on-farm inspection, the compliance inspections and the horrendous penalties that something can result from genuine mistakes. You know, I know that creates huge problems, huge anxiety in the farming industry. We recognise these checks need to happen, but the consequences of genuine mistakes, these are low-abiding honest people. It can be absolutely horrendous. Can you give us some idea that some of these difficulties can be overcome as a result of Brexit? Well, I'm sympathetic to the view that Mr Chapman has just expressed, and I've heard the very same arguments frequently from many farmers and crofters. And I'm particularly sympathetic to the thesis that the penalty regime for clerical or honest administrative errors is far too harsh. And indeed, in the stability and simplicity paper, we specifically indicate that we think both of those issues, the penalty regime and inspection should be looked at. We have had a number of very useful responses. Interestingly, a number of responses have actually pointed to the need for inspections. I mean, if we're to have, and this has changed the text slightly, but I mean, if we're to have the high surveillance that resulted in the detection of a BSE case, we need to have a very effective surveillance regime. We've got that if we didn't. We wouldn't have detected the case, convener, and goodness knows what the consequences of that would have been. So inspections are necessary, and the many of the correspondence that I've seen have made that point. But there are so many inspections of plethora and the nature and timing of them, at times when it's interfering with gathering sheep and all the rest of it and having to bring in sheep for counting and all the rest. I mean, all of these things are the source of a great number of complaints and dissatisfaction, but overall we need to have an effective regime. And I do think that this will be part of the locus, the remit of the regime. Actually, both Douglas and Ian can talk a lot more about that if they want to accept the invitation. Ian, if you want to come in briefly, I mean, I am stacking up questions quickly. What we've done so far in taking this forward is convinced our staff on the ground, if we're dealing with farmers on a day-to-day basis, to get ideas or thoughts on simplification where that can be made easy. We have over 300 ideas put in front of us and we've only received them about 10 days ago. So we have a team in place that's going through them, looking at what's almost possible now without changing the legislation, what might have to wait until we can make some decisions of our own. So we're really encouraged by the number of ideas that are coming forward. And later this week, Douglas and I are meeting with our delivery partners in Scottish National Heritage, SEPA and Forestry. So it's really been a very encouraging piece of work and that will then form the basis of which we take to the external panel. Thank you, Ian. Richard, do you want to come in briefly? Recap payments. So in layman's terms, we will lose all EU funding after Brexit and if the UK Government don't come up with funding, the Scottish Government will pause the process and we'll be able to do that. I think putting it starkly, but it's broadly true. We are fearful about the termination of direct support payments. We believe that they serve a valuable role that's necessary and that farmers should be appreciated more for what they do and they deserve them. And I think that we're going to be able to do that and we're going to be able to do that. We're all public servants in different ways. Many people, even in the private sector, receive money from the state for differing purposes to single out farmers in a way that their undeserved recipients of this money I think is particularly unfair. So I hope that in the course of the debates that are going on that a reasonable conclusion can be arrived at, convener. If not, then it's very difficult for me as a cabinet minister to see how we could find hundreds of millions of pounds from elsewhere in the budget. That is not something that is generally possible for any Government for obvious reasons. If we had hundreds of millions of pounds that were sloshing around unallocated, you'd be the first to say that we weren't doing our job properly. But the definition is up to the UK Government, whose, after all, had the idea of the Brexit referendum and made the promises about matching the funding on the side of a bus. So it's really up to them to come up with some better answers on the level of funding. I've been making this point, I think, since the referendum. Well, actually, yes, literally since the day after the referendum. Can we move on to the next subject, which is the deputy convener that I would like to ask, Gail. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Cabinet Secretary, obviously you're aware of the importance of the less favoured area support scheme, so I'm going to give you a chance to speak about it now. The funding in the scheme is due to reduce from £65.5 million this year, possibly to as low as £13 million in 2020. And stakeholders are rightly concerned about the potential reduction in loss of this funding. So what options have you explored to prevent ELFAS funding from being cut? And are there any contingency plans being put in place in case this does actually reduce? Yes. Cabinet Secretary. Well, Gail Ross is absolutely right, and ELFAS payments are particularly important in the north of Scotland. Her own constituency, for example, we've made it clear in the stability and simplicity document that it's unacceptable that we see ELFAS payments reduced to 20 per cent, but those are the rules of the scheme. Therefore, what we have indicated in our consultation paper is that we need to find, if you like, a workaround to enable recipients, broadly speaking. And I don't want to make specific commitments here, I'm not doing that because this is work in progress and no decisions have been made, but our desire, our aim, is to work with the industry, especially the NFU, Maef and Sheep Associations, in order to find a workaround in order, effectively, to maintain the level of support that's going into the least favoured areas. At a level that is sufficient to maintain rural development, particularly in the most remote parts of Scotland, and Gail Ross represents a very large tronch of them. That's our objective, convener. It's not an easy one to achieve. I believe it is achievable, and we have the goodwill of the stakeholders in committing to do that, so we're working closely with them. In August, I'm going to do that, and I'm working closely with them. In August, I met with the NFU's less favoured area committee in Granton and Spay, and my officials met with them again earlier this month. Officials have also met with other stakeholders, including Crofters, National Sheep and Beef Associations. So this is work in progress, and I undertake to keep the committee informed of the progress that we make in that work. Okay, that's fine. Yes, Maureen. It's important, cabinet secretary, that we know what the UK agriculture bill says in terms of ELFAS, because, at the moment, it's still under their jurisdiction, and will be for some time. Cabinet secretary. Well, I'm advised, and I was checking this there, there is nothing in the bill about less favoured area schemes, and it is the case that down south the equivalent ELFAS scheme was scrapped, seven years ago. It's because we have this devolved Parliament that we have ELFAS, it's been supported by all parties, so far as I'm aware, because it provides a purpose of keeping the lights on in rural Scotland, keeping school roles going, and the most remote communities have farmers and crofters at their heart. So for all these reasons, I'm just summarised, I hope there's a will across all members to find a practical way to continue to support the people that need it most. Peter, you want us to come in? I just want to tie you down a wee bit more, cabinet secretary. Are you saying, let's be clear, are you saying that you intend to continue payments, whether it's called ELFAS or something else, at the same level in 2019 and 2020 as is currently in place? I mean, is that what you're saying you intend to do? First of all, this year, as soon as we became aware that we were permitted to do so, we restored ELFAS to 100 per cent from 80 per cent, which hither, too, had been the steer, the European Parliament intervened to allow the payments to be maintained 100 per cent. So we acted very quickly, actually, and I took tough decisions that enabled me to do that, to maintain ELFAS. The payment reduction is to 80 per cent next year, and I don't think that we can prevent that from happening, but a reduction from 80 per cent to 20 per cent, convener, is what I think is just not acceptable. It's just not acceptable, and that's why I've said so, sticking my neck out. I'm not going to stick my neck out further at this stage in case someone decides to apply the guillotine to it, so I hope you forgive me for that self-preservation instinct. But, you know, seriously, I am determined to find a work around my officials are working very hard on this. I think it's within our reach that we're approaching this in a practical way. There's many, many other issues involved here about ELFAS as a scheme, and no-one is saying that it's perfect in every way. So we do need to have a hard and close look at how it operates and who benefits from it and make sure that those who most need continue to benefit. My stated intention is to find a work around to prevent it going down from 20 per cent a year after next. OK, I think we'll move on to the next question. John, that's you. Thank you, convener. The UK Agriculture Bill has already been mentioned, so I just wonder, cabinet secretary, if you could say something about your view of the UK Agriculture Bill and whether it could or should include measures concerning Scotland. Well, you know, I think the starting point is that agriculture is devolved. I mean, we have been making decisions about agriculture. If it wasn't devolved, would there still be an ELFAS scheme just going back to the previous? We have used our powers under devolution to do something that we all believe is necessary and it's different. It's diverged from the UK policy. So I think the principle is that this is a devolved area and it should continue to be devolved. And any move away from that is something that we believe is wrong in principle. Nonetheless, we recognise that we want to be and we have been, I hope, I have been constructive and engaging with the UK, particularly in the UK DA meetings and my officials have carried out a huge amount of work with DEFRA. That has been very fruitful. There are reasonable relations at all levels, I hope. But there are three sticking points and I don't know whether you want me to mention them now. I went over this ground in detail yesterday with the counterpart, select committee, select committee, but basically there are three areas where we believe that the powers of this Parliament would be predated, if you like, and we don't think that's acceptable and there are particular risks involved in that. The three areas are basically WTO, producers, organisations and marketing, fair dealing and effective market developments. In particular, the WTO is a complex issue but basically it's a reserved issue but in its implementation it's devolved. That's essentially the argument and perhaps I won't dwell on this if I could talk for a long, long time in this convener, you don't want me to do that. What I would just make in conclusion is this. The decision that we took when these three areas were devolved was not my decision. It came from legal advice and I want to put it to you that this was not me playing at politics at all. It wasn't the Scottish Government being political. Quite the opposite. We have very clear legal advice that the bill as it's drafted will take away powers from this institution and our response has been to seek to argue and persuade the UK Government to amend the bill so that it doesn't do that and it's my hope that those efforts which are still continuing will be successful and thus far the UK have not provided as we have any justification for their argument and incidentally an LCM has been lodged with Parliament and you will have it and it sets out our arguments in a great deal of detail as is our duty and is right and proper. Cabinet Secretary, can I just note that LCM is a matter that will be discussed by the committee I believe next week as we've only recently got it. John is very kindly agreed that I can ask you a couple of questions if I may on the WTO agreement on agriculture that's part 7 of the UK agriculture bill. Can you just confirm at the moment who is the person who negotiates while we're in the EU with the WTO? Those are pretty technical issues and I've been well briefed on them but to save time it might be better if David Barnes were to give the answer to this technical question. I'm very happy if David wants to answer but I'm trying to make them very simple questions so that they would require short answers. So who negotiates on behalf of the EU with the WTO? Chairman, if I may the problem with simple precise questions is that they might only pick out one small element of a complex landscape so the position is that under the EU's common commercial policy on all trade policy issues it's the European Commission that negotiates on behalf of the European Union and the member states that however does not mean that accountability legal responsibility and so on all automatically fall to the European Commission as well. Apologies if I'm jumping ahead and answering a question you haven't asked but it is a very complicated position so the negotiation, your precise question the negotiation is done by the European Commission and there are arrangements, bureaucratic arrangements whereby the member states effectively give the mandate to the European Commission so the Commission doesn't set the negotiating policy but it carries out negotiations. So at the moment could you give me the example, direct payment to farmers covered by the amount of money that is put in under the aggregate measure of support? Could you confirm to me what the current level of the aggregate measure of support is for the EU and does it allow us to pay farmers in the way that we want to with direct support? The way European policies have been designed the direct payments all fall either under the green or blue categories in the WTO for which no limit applies provided the scheme in question meets the rules of that category the aggregate measure of support is it is a complicated issue the aggregate measure of support is a limit that applies to the amber category and none of the direct payments I think I'm correct in saying I might double check my text but I'm 99% sure that none of certainly none of the current direct payments in Scotland fall into that category in the subject of the aggregate measure of support limit But post Brexit direct payments to farmers will fall under the amber boxes my understanding is that correct? Convenan, that wouldn't be an automatic thing it would depend entirely on the design of the scheme the point that is under dispute or a point of concern for the Scottish Government in the way the the DEFRA agriculture bill has been drafted is about the decision who would get to take the decision about which category particular schemes would or wouldn't fall into So the line I was trying to take you down is the post Brexit the UK have asked the World Trade Organization for the ability to make payments of up to £5.9 billion direct payments in subsidies which is approximately 83% of what the EU is paying across all of EU So my point on that is that there's ample scope within the funds that are put up should direct payments to farmers fall under the amber box Now based on that and based on the fact that the EU is currently negotiating and based on the evidence that we heard from Michael Gope earlier in the year actually to negotiate with the WTO we'll have to remain with the UK Government because they are the signature to it and Michael Gope has said and it says in the agriculture bill that the UK will consult with the other organisations the devolved administrations why are you worried about what it says in part 7 of the UK agriculture bill to me I can't follow it and I've looked at it carefully and I've taken advice on it A number of questions in there one of the other concerns of Scottish ministers excuse me if I look slightly discombobulated it's because your last comment about a requirement to consult unless the text has changed since I last looked at it one of our concerns is that there wasn't even a requirement to consult let alone have the consent of the devolved administrations I know there have been discussions and all the devolved administrations have been pushing the UK Government on this the Scottish Government is not in any way questioning that the negotiation of international obligations including WTO obligations is a reserved matter the cabinet secretary said that a few moments ago there is no issue at all about the negotiation the issue is entirely about the implementation of those international obligations and the legislative consent memorandum sets out the Scottish Government's position based as the cabinet secretary said on legal advice which is essentially that if an area of policy is devolved then once an international obligation has been negotiated the implementation of that in a devolved administrations territory is a devolved matter now there may be certain things that have to be done that it makes sense to do for the UK as a whole rather than in four separate decisions but that in itself doesn't in our understanding change the devolution settlement and suddenly flip something into being reserved so for example let's say hypothetically there were to be future support in Scotland which fell into the amber box it may be the case as you say convener that there is a great deal of headroom in there but as things stand the amount of headroom that Scotland would have would be the result of an allocation to Scotland which under the bill would be made unilaterally by the secretary of state so there again the view of devolved ministers is that if this is a devolved policy area that devolution should be respected and even if something has to be done on a UK wide basis if it's a devolved area of policy that should be agreed amongst the administrations and not carried out unilaterally by the UK government but the details are in the legislative concern around it but I mean the point to me is and perhaps we're going to leave it on this the point to me is that Michael Gave has said agriculture and agricultural sport is a matter for the Scottish government because it's devolved in the amount of money that can be paid under the amber box as classified by the World Trade Organization that we'd have to be as big as really frankly the whole of the EU to use up the allocation we've needed so it appears we're seeing problems that don't actually exist I'm going to come back to John because I think you've got some more questions on that Well thanks, convener might not are perhaps a more general nature I mean you were saying before in your last answer to me cabinet secretary that there was these three areas that you were looking for amendments to the UK agriculture bill could you just spell out for me who's not a farmer but in kind of simple terms you know if these amendments are taken how will that practically impact on our Scottish farmers and if they are not taken how will that practically impact on our Scottish farmers Well those three areas have been identified by senior legal advisers and the dialogue is continuing and you know I have no wish to fall out with the UK Government over technical matters and the whole approach and a huge amount of effort is going in to try to reach agreement on these things and focus on the real substantive important issues what would the impact be well in relation to the WTO Mr Barnes has already indicated that decisions could be taken by the UK Government which may have an impact on our ability to continue to make coupled payments or voluntary coupled payments and given the importance of livestock farming I think in principle that is wrong even if the convener is correct about the nature of the dispensation that may be the case now it may not be the case in the future and if we agree to this we will be forfeiting powers of legal advice Secondly in relation to producer's organisations we would not be able to set up a producer's organisation in Scotland without say so from the UK Government that seems to me to be absurd and it runs contrary to the practice of where the producer's organisation Angus Grores was deregognised the legal action was taken against the Scottish Government if it wasn't to devolve function why was it not taken against the UK Government I don't want to overplay these but there are risks but they are not the greatest risks the greatest risks are to do with other political matters and in that respect convener as well as the three specific areas I've also asked the UK Government add various things to the bill add a commitment about clarifying the funding to answer Mr Lyle's point make it clear on the record enhancer what level of funding there will be Secondly the red meat levy and I'm pleased that an amendment is now being brought forward albeit by backbencher to the territory and whilst the amendment is we've just got it we think that it's unsatisfactory in several respects this means that in a practical way a couple of million quid is being lost to market scotch beef and scotch lamb now we could do an awful lot we really need that funding and it's money attributable to Scottish livestock it's a long standing issue that has not been resolved and this bill should resolve it that would take place geographical indicators are not in the bill they should be in the bill and the UK appeared to be seeking to use this as a lever and finally we're all concerned that post Brexit there could be a free-for-all with the importation of cheap meat chlorinated chicken and a meat produce which has been produced in countries which don't have the high standards that pertain in the UK under the EU legislative frameworks and therefore we would have liked to have seen in this bill a requirement that prior to the importation of any such meat produce relevant certification and evidence would have to be produced and demonstrated that any such meat produce or other food stuffs had been produced in accordance with the high welfare hygiene and other regulatory standards and they haven't agreed to that although to be fair I think they have said that will be in a trade bill so there's other things but which we think from Scotland's interests convener should be in the bill but which currently are not Is the main concern that there will be Scottish Government Parliament even farmers will not have the same powers that they had to act or is the main concern that the funding is going to be so reduced that we can't pass that on to farmers or is it a mixture of both Is the mixture of both The next question is Peter Just to follow on and your amendments the proposed amendments to the agricultural bell the clause is 22 to 26 How has the UK Government responded to your proposed amendments on these matters Government Secretary Mr Gove when I suggested that he should in the course of the bill clarify by him during the Brexit referendum replied by saying that it was a very good point but he hasn't actually done what I asked namely to make a statement in Hansard and this perhaps trumps everything to rural Britain it's not only Scotland because I assume that farmers down south will be starting to get increasingly worried about future support levels because they don't know beyond 222 so that's number one number two, the red meat levy we were promised that it will be dealt with in the bill we've just received the backbench amendment so that's an element of progress but it has to be satisfactory it has to work, it has to repatriate the money that is attributable to Scottish livestock on geographical indicators there has been no agreement to deal with this in the course of the bill and lastly moving to the three topics the WTO produces organisations the fair dealing and marketing I think the key point I make just to be brief is we have provided the justification for our arguments our lawyers and our LCM says why we have come to these conclusions the UK Government haven't shared their reasoning their rationale their justification they've only made an assertion I don't think that's good enough so I've written to them inviting them to set out their reasons for why they believe that these three matters are wholly reserved and I hope, convener that that will lead to a continuing positive dialogue and ultimately a resolution of these issues that is my preference Peter, but just before you come back just to clarity you say that you've written to the UK Government could you just confirm to the committee when you write to them well I've written to them on numerous occasions and 24 October was the amendment letter I've got it I've got it here so you know this is just a detail but you know we have been in respectful, continuous engagement I mean I've met with Mr Gove Mr Eustace on all 8 or 10 occasions and Mrs Ledson before that and we have regular meetings and that's absolutely appropriate because although we disagree with the fundamentals about Brexit we've got a duty to prepare prepare for the worst from our perspective Mr Chapman and we take that duty very seriously we're not slacking we are spending a huge amount of time and you guys are about to spend an even greater amount of time as I understand it with the triple SIs To carry on the conversation on that you say you want to get an agreement because there is no agreement between this Government and the Westminster what's the next step well agriculture is a devolved matter we are perfectly capable of legislating for ourselves there is no technical problem here we are not prevented from doing anything by the fact that we don't agree to the UK agriculture bill again this is a matter for legal advice but I'm absolutely certain that if we don't agree to the bill there's no deleterious impacts that will affect farming in any way whatsoever simply by virtue of or not agreeing to the bill that is a complete and utter red herring and I dealt with that extensively yesterday to the select committee and sadly there has been some scare mongering going on by Tory MPs based on completely false analysis of the factual legal position and therefore I'm arranging for a legal opinion to be provided to this committee and to the select committee setting out precisely why any claims that there would be any detrimental impact on farmers simply by virtue of or not agreeing to this bill is completely and manifestly ill founded just finally you have decided to bring forward a legislative consent memorandum on the bill but you haven't brought forward a motion can you explain the thinking behind that well you know I haven't looked closely at the parliamentary procedure I was very concerned that incidentally we supplied the LCM we got dispensation to do so a bit later than with normally the case because of the complexity here it is here it's a complex document I'm in the hands of parliament you know we will do what is right to do but I was initially concerned to make sure that we set out a series of pretty complex topics and of course any further proceedings for example responding to this committee when you consider the LCM as I think you indicated you're planning to do convener next week maybe the next process is that after you do that then we have a dialogue about it then but you know that really is a detail the more important things are we're seen to cooperate with the UK Government if we don't and there's no agreement that doesn't affect farmers detrimentally it's very very important to make that clear because there has been sadly I'm afraid to say quite a lot of scaremongering just to clarify for other people who may be watching we have actually got the legislative consent memorandum and I think the point was that there is no motion attached to that and that's something that the committee will have to consider next week and consider how to take that forward because that would have actually made it perhaps easier for the committee to move forward but that's a matter for another committee meeting and I think the next question I'm going to take is from Maureen Maureen Thank you convener good morning panel you will be aware that NFUS are concerned that there may not be any legal vehicle for delivering payments beyond the 29th of March 2019 for the record cabinet secretary can you give your thinking on this yes well obviously we've had a great deal of dialogue with the NFU and you know we've been absolutely all over this and we are absolutely satisfied that there is no problem with continuing to make all payments that are properly due to farmers and crofters and moreover in addition due course a post a transition period in the event that it is determined and agreed that there should be changes to the CEP then there will be no problem about enabling that to happen in the absence of a UK bill so you know I'm absolutely satisfied convener that for very good legal reasons and I've already indicated we will share we will provide you with the legal advice in copper plate in detail because I could talk about this for a long time but I'm absolutely persuaded by the detailed advice that I have had over the past week or so occasioned because of all the scaremongering that's been going on that it's completely unfounded and I do hope that once the legal advice is shared that members if they look at it will come to the same conclusion as me on with the real issues and not side issues farmers and crofters will continue to receive their payments and indeed that's as you know my priority is the cabinet secretary to deal with okay thank you the next question then is Jamie Greene thank you convener and good morning panel so just to follow on from Maureen Watt's question and for the benefit of this committee you spoke at great length on this yesterday can you outline to this parliamentary committee which legal framework the Scottish Government will use to deliver support payments beyond March 2019 okay well there's a sort of tripartite answer to this and I'll ask David to answer if I may David Barnes yes convener the strategy that the UK Government announced some long time ago that it would adopt was one to take the entire body of European law including the common agricultural policy and roll it into domestic law at the point where that was necessary because it was simply impossible to replace the entire body of European law with domestic law in that time frame so that was the UK Government strategy Scottish ministers as the cabinet secretary reminded us would rather not be in this position at all but pragmatically took the decision that in the circumstances we're in they would follow the same strategy the data at which that becomes necessary depends on whether there is a deal or no deal but that doesn't affect the legal instruments so the continuity bill that passed through the Scottish Government and the EU withdrawal act that went through the Westminster Parliament both carry out that act of taking the entire body of European law and rolling it into domestic law now just doing that verbatim causes some technical difficulties because for example all the references to the EU institutions don't really make sense in domestic law so there is a huge programme of work that the cabinet secretary has mentioned that will hit your committee very soon my colleagues have been discussing this with the clerks already a programme of secondary legislation statutory instruments to make those technical corrections so that when European law is rolled into domestic law it will function properly and a big programme of work on that as I mentioned will be coming to your committee very soon and we've been working closely with the UK Government and colleagues in DEFRA on that so when all of that is done whether it is needed for next March or whether it is needed for a later date as a result of a withdrawal agreement in effect the common agricultural policy will exist in domestic law and therefore we can carry on using it and that will be the legal base and conveniw, you'll notice in all of that I haven't mentioned the DEFRA agriculture bill because I haven't needed to because as the cabinet secretary explained it's a red herring and that's for other things for the purposes of the immediate continuity it's the legal instruments and the strategy that I've just described cabinet secretary you suggested there was a three pronged answer did you want to bring somebody else in well there's a no deal scenario there's the continuity bill and the withdrawal bill that's what I mean sorry, Jenny thank you for that long answer just to summarise that you're saying that the Scottish Government is relying on the EU withdrawal bill past your Westminster and the continuity bill which the Scottish Government pursued in the Scottish Parliament isn't it the case however that the continuity bill is undergoing some legal concerns at the moment over its validity so do you have any concerns that if the Supreme Court were to deem that an invalid piece of legislation that would interrupt this seamless flow that you spoke of that's the first question isn't it the case that the situation that you just described only allows for continuation of the status quo in other words that only allows the Scottish Government to continue to make cap payments under the current cap regime my question is beyond 2019 what legal framework will the Scottish Government use to deviate from that to be able to deliver to Scottish farm payments given that it's choosing not to participate in the UK's agricultural bill I don't think you've answered that question yet yes to take the second part first convener the cabinet secretary reminded us that in stability and simplicity he set out a a five year plan with two phases in it and it would be in the second phase that changes would begin to be made and therefore those powers would not be needed under that plan those powers would not be needed even in a no deal scenario in 2019 on the first question I'm not a lawyer and the cabinet secretary said that we'll send in the detailed legal position my understanding of the Scottish Government's legal understanding is that the outcome of the clearly the Scottish Government hopes for success for the continuity bill through the supreme court process but my understanding is that the outcome would make no difference to this precise issue about continuity of powers to make farm payments you have just said that you're relying on the withdrawal bill and the continuity bill as the legal basis in which you can continue to make cap payments one of the elements that has been contested you're saying that regardless of the outcome of that verdict you can rely solely then on the withdrawal bill being incorporated in the domestic legislation to allow you to make those payments and I don't think you quite answered that question which was under which legal framework given the absence of participation in the UK agricultural bill you will be able to make different types of payments outside of the cap regime that's still unclear yes again on the point of the continuity bill and the withdrawal act yes absolutely it's the case that one of those is subject to court proceedings but the other one isn't so in effect as I said I'm not a lawyer but in layman's terms if if one of them fails the other is the safety net into which one falls so I hope that's clear but we will get the lawyers to spell it out properly in terms of legislative vehicles I think that the cabinet secretary when previously asked about this the phrase he's used is that we're exploring all available options he's explained that we're still trying to work constructively with DEFRA and I think that the secretary of state say to the cabinet secretary in private meetings and I think he said it in public as well that taking power through this agriculture bill is still an option that would be on the table albeit that the cabinet secretary has described some very big obstacles to that but of course as the cabinet secretary has said we are perfectly capable of legislating through the Scottish Parliament and so that would be an alternative and all options are being kept open and explored so cabinet secretary I think I can ask you directly is there going to be a Scottish agricultural bill well we continue to work with UK government and UK ag bill I've made that clear already I think twice if that doesn't happen and we require to take our own measures obviously we are free to do so and there is ample time within which to do so under an every scenario so there is no problem, there is no issue and our legal advice will demonstrate that beyond doubt Jamie Greene I'm just wondering that I haven't misunderstood David Barnes' response to the question that Jamie Greene asked so you said, correct me if I'm wrong I don't want to put words in him, I don't want to make it clear we didn't need the continuity bill to make these payments so all that hassle that we went through for the continuity bill I voted against it by the way it wasn't necessary is that what you're saying convener I I hope I did I believe I chose my words very carefully and I said that for this single very precise point in the absence of the continuity bill there is effectively a safety net so I was confining those comments to this one very specific point about the continuation of CAP payments so I'm not confident to make a comment on the wider need for the continuity bill so can I just clarify and I apologise if I'm taking anyone on others point here is cabinet secretary what you're saying is there will be a Scottish agriculture bill if we need it if we don't need it and you can work with the UK if we need to act by way of legislation then of course we would consider us so doing and if it proves to be necessary I imagine and this is for cabinet to decide that that's exactly what would happen obviously that's a statement of the obvious and that's the course we propose to to take should that scenario arise but I'm hopeful that the UK Government will start to justify the decisions that it's reached so we'll play it a certain time okay I'll come back to Jeremy Sir in yesterday's session in Westminster the NFUS made the following statement and I wonder if you could comment on it the continuity issues are reasonably clear but if we wanted to move to a new support settlement beyond the CAP we would have to have a legal framework to do so Scottish ministers will have to have the power either through this bill presumably they mean the UK agricultural bill through a schedule which the Scottish Government does not want to participate in or through a Scottish bill in the Scottish Parliament but at the moment we have no clarity or certainty or on what that might be or when that might come forward from your answer today can we assume that there's an ongoing lack of clarity and certainty then given that you've given no commitment to this today no lack of clarity on our part we've had a number of discussions with the NFU about this matter and we will continue so to do we are absolutely clear that for the reasons that myself and Mr Barnes have set out there is no problem that we will provide for all ventualities in any way necessary it will not be particularly complicated or difficult so to do no further questions just in clarity we've got a quote here that Pete Wishart said that of course there'll be a Scottish Government bill relating to agriculture was he a bit early in making that comment if there's necessary if it's necessary for us to have a bill then we will have a bill there's no problem about that, there's plenty of time to do it and moreover the bill wouldn't be particularly complicated as I understand it it would be very straight forward and it would be limited to what is necessary in order to achieve the specific point of being able to amend CAP there's nothing difficult or complex about this and really my view is that instead of arching over it almost seems to be dancing in the head of a pin a sort of medieval metaphysical argument born of a desire to nitpick and troublemake and would it not be better that we actually talk about things that matter to farmers and crofters because there's no shortage of those we're going to move on to the next question Eleanor Mitchell maybe wanted to ahead of ag wanted to come in I didn't catch My apologies, I didn't hear I didn't know until just a moment ago that you wanted to Very briefly Eleanor, I'm happy to bring you in I just wondered what's helped so in my head just for the voice of the doubt there's three clear periods we're working to so there's a period post Brexit Brexit day until 2021 and we're very clear that we have the legal arrangements in place under either scenario the stability and simplicity consultation document tells us the story of what's going to happen between 2021 and 2024 or 2025 which is that we're going to use we're going to try out some new different things we're going to test out perhaps different ways of model farming or other things we could do to try out some new ways of offering payments to farmers and others and during that period of time we're going to take the time we need for clear future policy for payments for farmers and crofters along with the wider information we've been given under the NCA report so there are three very clear timeframes and I think we've got clear plans for each of them to take forward the work we need to do OK and now we are going to move on to the next question which is Colin Thanks very much, cabinet secretary back in 2016 you said we're going to consult on a good food nations bill across party and stakeholder consensus and obviously that bill was a manifesto commitment that consensus appeared to break down when the programme of government apparently diminished that commitment to a stand-alone good food nations bill and obviously parliament in September voted very clearly in support of a stand-alone good food nations bill so can I ask are you going to deliver on the will of parliament all you legislate for a stand-alone good food nations bill including the right to food? Well there are several questions there specific right to food is a very important one and a very detail one we have made a very clear commitment to consult on proposed legislative solutions and to do so this year before the end of the year and that document is in the course of preparation and therefore I very much hope that once that is available then we can have a proper thorough considered rational discussion about the legislative options about this and therefore I think that that will introduce an element to the discussion which will be very useful I think that Eleanor Mitchell might be able to add to that Yes so the document has a range of measures as the cabinet secretary said there are plans in place to consult on those measures and if there are elements of that which folks don't feel that they fully cover all the things we would need to do in order to progress good food nations then we will of course take them on board as we hear, as a consultation proceeds Is that clear what's being proposed? You previously said there would be a stand-alone good food nations bill and the Government said there would be a wider piece of legislation most likely a farm and food bill what exactly is it? Just to be clear will you be aiming to legislate for the right to food? Will you be legislating for an independent statutory body to oversee the implementation of the good food nations programme and will there be statutory targets? Are these the things that you are specifically proposing to legislate for and what will that legislation look like? Will it be a good food nations bill, which Parliament said it should be or will it be this farm and food bill, which the pro-gal Government seems to suggest it will be? There's a whole range of questions there, convener, and I just don't think I've got the time to answer all of them I think in practice what we're doing to consult with the public and all interested parties is the routine orthodox correct approach so that these matters can be considered not in a polemic way not in a political way but in a rational and considered way and therefore our consultation and I've undertaken it will be issued this year despite all the Brexit workload which is thrust upon us in addition to the normal workload we will carry on with the day job we will issue the consultation and it would be quite improper really for me I think to prejudge the views of the people of Scotland and all the stakeholders and for me blithly to say to give yes or no answers to all these important questions the whole point of a consultation is to consider things properly, thoroughly, rationally and that's exactly what we're going to do Colin, do you want to follow that up? I just it seems strange that we've had a manifesto we've come up for a good food nations bill but we're not sure anymore we had a programme of government that said they would most likely be a farm and food bill but we're now being told as we don't really know yet well I don't agree with that characterisation and with respect convener I think most people out there are thinking let's get this Brexit business sorted out let our politicians devote their attentions to what is absolutely essential and needs to be done that's what I'm doing I think with respect cabinet secretary what the consensus is from all the stakeholders is that we need a good food nations bill to tackle the scandal of things like food poverty in Scotland today and that's important to the people but we'll wait and see the consultation sorry cabinet secretary as convener I think you've had a chance to make a statement and so has Colin and I don't want to give either of you the last word so I'm going to move on to the next question which is Stuart Stevenson on Thursday last week the UK government published a fisheries bill what engagement has the Scottish government had with the preparation of that bill okay well at the meetings that I've referred to between the UK government and the devolved administrations I've had fairly detailed discussions about fishing not as detailed as agriculture the fisheries bill has recently been published I think it's fair to say that our officials have played a very constructive and positive role in that and we are able to say that through the efforts of our officials original proposals which we're going to provide that for example all matters relating to or most matters relating to quota would be set by the UK government that after discussion and sensible dialogue that particular provision was altered in a way that it would not interfere with devolved powers so I'm actually pleased that the dialogue has had some positive outcomes so we have sought to work constructively with DEFRA and the other devolved administrations in order to advance our fishing interests there's more work to be done which we will still need to look at carefully, we've only just got the bill we didn't get advanced notice of it in its in its substance so I hope that we can perhaps come back to this convener once we're a little bit further down the road Joe Okay, we'll move on to the next question then which will be from Richard Lyle Richard Come Secretary, it's my understanding that in September 20, 2018 the UK Government and the Welsh Government published a joint statement on agricultural framework progress why was it that the Scottish Government was not included in that joint statement Which statement are you referring to? September 2018 the Government Welsh Government published a joint statement on agricultural framework progress we were not included in that joint statement we have taken part in the processes agreed centrally between the Scottish Government and the UK Government to discuss frameworks in an exploratory way and we've sought therefore to be positive about that and we've taken part in these discussions again without prejudice to the overall positions on Brexit where we differ substantially from the UK however the UK Government approach for example to the Ag Bill in attempting to assert a UK-wide framework has been, we believe, unhelpful and despite that we're continuing to work with the UK Government to seek to resolve the matters the joint statement is a matter for the administrations that signed it Welsh ministers have already and I think this is a fair point to make convener made it clear that they are in a different position given the different result of the EU referendum in Wales from Scotland Richard. Do you agree that the vast majority of policy areas can be managed through non-legislative intergovernmental coordination and do you also agree that if the UK Government would work with the Scottish Government and not against the Scottish Government it would be good? Well obviously we would like to at the UK Government to respect devolution and not to impose matters upon us in the way that sadly is being done in the agricultural bill and despite that and despite if you like taking the blows we are still engaging positively in the hope that common sense can ultimately prevail. And lastly the joint UK and the Welsh Government statement on agricultural framework progress says that the administrative framework will be developed it will ensure that there is coordination, dialogue between the Administrations on how any changes to legislation in one part of the UK may affect other parts Will the Scottish Government be part of this administrative framework? Well engagement has been taking place and does so on a daily basis so that engagement between officials will continue and myself, Miss Cunningham Mr Day, Mr Russell leading will continue to engage in the various forums and meetings where these matters are discussed and doing so I think the public wants us to try to be reasonable where we can and try to set aside our differences where we can in the hope that solutions can be found but I think also the public in Scotland expects us to stand up for this institution and stand up for Scotland and stand up for the powers of this community. Do you sometimes get frustrated with this process? Sir Cabinet Secretary in a different place when we have more time and I'm sure he'd be delighted to answer Jamie, you have a full-out question and then I want to move on to the next one Jamie. I appreciate there's a fair amount of politics in all of this but can I ask this Cabinet Secretary at a certain point, could you hear anyone in the panel update is on the important 24 errors of common frameworks that have been, as we understand going into deep dive over the last months and weeks, what progress has been made to ensure that there is a sensible, co-ordinated approach to UK frameworks? I'm very pleased to say that the man in the deep dive from the diving board to the swimming pools is to my right here so I think I'll let David speak about the deep dives. Briefly, if I may, I encourage you to be brief. Yes, thank you Cabinet Secretary. I've been involved in the deep dive in one particular policy area lots of other Scottish Government officials involved across the other areas. This is a process that is under a mandate set collectively by the JMCEN the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations which had a progress report relatively recently about the agriculture and environment ministers meet again in November and will, I expect, probably have this on their agenda as well. Are discussions happening and progress being made? Yes. Are agreements imminent? I think the answer is no. My colleagues in our central constitutional area are in the absolute lead on the process. My understanding is that there are a number of other Brexit related global non-agricultural issues that need to fall into place before any agreement could be finalised so progress, yes, imminent agreement not yet. Thank you. The next question is from Peter Chapman. Thank you, convener. In October this year Mr Gove announced a review to deliver fair funding for farmers in all four parts of the UK when we leave the EU. Did you have to the process of setting up the fair funding review? Well, I can... Just before you go to that, I know you may want to look back but I think Mr Chapman is trying to encourage you to look forward and I look forward to your answer. I think it's very important to say that this began a long before October. Mr Gove announced last November not this month but nearly a year ago that there would be a review. We agreed in principle in February of this year the terms of reference. Mr Davidson was on the call at which the agreement took place and then in August unilaterally and without warning the terms of reference were completely changed and diluted by the Treasury and moreover the UK changed various of its agreed components of the review. So the announcement that was made by Mr Gove was made without reference to us it was made without agreeing the terms of the review without that agreement being finalised and Mr Gove has acknowledged that in correspondence and apologised for that. So where are we going here Mr Gove? We want this review to go ahead because I think it's necessary to undo a manifest injustice where money clearly intended and really only intended for Scottish farmers and crofters was diverted by the UK Government for other purposes. We made it clear that we do not expect any payments to be recouped from farmers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but we do expect justice. Mr Gove as the person to conduct this review we agree with that suggestion he's a cross-bencher man of repute and we have faith in that. We will nominate our representative as agreed with Mr Gove in the course of the discussions from November to the spring of this year but it's deeply dispiriting that after we reached agreement with the UK Government we would have to go posts in a way that seeks to dilute the review so that so watered down that it no longer really reflects the requirements but be all that as it may I understand that the inquiries will be an independent inquiry it will be free to come to its own conclusions and recommendations it will have input from a reputable representative an experienced representative from Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland I believe that the advice it gives and I hope that it will conclude in a matter of months will be a very useful method of informing the debate that we then need to have about the intra-UK allocation of funding both pre and post Brexit That is a very important process and I recognise it exactly that and you recognise that the convergence funding has been spent but it doesn't mean that the review can't take that into account and I would hope it does take that into account going forward that has always been my position in the last 18 months or so that the money has been spent so we're not going to get that back but we can look forward and think that it should be part of this process and I would expect that to be the case so I think this is something that we can welcome and I would look forward to how it bands out but we must, of course, avoid at all costs that this money is part of the Barnett formula because that would be a disaster for Scottish agriculture I agree with some of it I'm pleased that Mr Chapman is supportive of the review I do think that it was always agreed that the review be a review since so in Paterson and it was agreed that the review looked not just post Brexit but was envisaged at the time of the agreement of the review it was agreed that it would look at what actually happened and that still must happen there's an opportunity to undo a manifest injustice and that's an issue not affecting Wales and Northern Ireland but affecting Scotland and the UK Government so I hope that it will do that the stakeholders have supported us in review and also they have criticised the UK Government for its reviving of the goalposts and the last point I make convener is this that the whole point of convergence policy by the EU was to make farm payments fair across the EU it was to bring up by one third the level of the lowest to 90% of the EU of the EU average now I have some figures here that indicate that that the average 14 to 20 for rural development funding per hectare ranges from Malta 1236 euros the EU average 76 euros to Scotland 12 euros now this table here which I'm happy to share with the committee shows that next year the rate of receipt of farm support on the hectareage basis the EU basis of whole payments 12 euros the EU average will be 76 euros we will receive the lowest of every single EU state and a less than half of that pertaining in England, Wales and Northern Ireland so I just mention these because we will need to debate this long and hard but on the face of it Scottish farmers and crofters get a raw deal they've had a raw deal the UK Government have perpetrated that raw deal and my determination is to stand up for Scottish farmers and crofters and redress that injustice to them both in the past and in the future I'm going to move on to the next question which is Jamie Greene you'll be aware you gave evidence yesterday to the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry entitled the future of Scottish agriculture post Brexit clearly there's an opportunity here to look at subsidy systems and see some divergence in terms of policy from two governments on where they want to take that in terms of direction what is your commentary to Johnny Hall's evidence yesterday that said that CAP has not done Scottish agriculture any great favours it's created a culture of dependency incentivised inertia stifled innovation prevented new entrants and done little or no for the environment no I don't I agree with the NFU and the agricultural champions incidentally that we should encourage more productivity a more professional mindset I agree with NGOs who believe that we should work together in order to encourage more environmental practice where it can practically be done and sensibly be done at the moment as is right and proper but I think that characterisation of the CAP in that way is really just too negative also I mean the EU has been a good friend to whole farmers let's face it it has provided a certainty and stability in funding it's also enabled a large number of environmental schemes to operate in Scotland and created a lot of good work as a result to alleviate flooding to deal with environmental issues that was right and proper to do so I'm not sure that the individual is entitled to his views but I don't agree with him OK so the purpose of that inquiry and I suspect the purpose of the Scottish Government's own work is to look at the future post CAP what are your views on the work of Westminster's Scottish First Committee on this by being dissipated by evidence but is the Scottish Government having any formal role in that inquiry and indeed how is the Scottish Government working with Westminster or indeed the UK Government to look at any common areas of interest in a post CAP scenario well I mean I'm happy that the Scottish Affairs Committee is taking an interest in the future of Scottish agriculture my formal role I think is very much evident yesterday when I gave evidence for an hour to them together with officials I'm keen to continue to engage with the UK Government about the future of agriculture in Britain and as I've said I very much hope that the UK Government will reconsider its abandonment of a commitment to provision of financial support continued financial support for food production in the UK I think it's a fundamental issue at stake here and if it's not right in the agricultural bill to debate it when it is so in all these respects yes I welcome the committee's work and yes we will continue to engage with the governments although sometimes in a state of somewhat frustration it's more in hope than expectation Cabinet Secretary I too welcome everyone looking at the future of agriculture in Scotland I'm just wondering how a Westminster committee are going to feed in on a devolved matter to a committee in the Scottish Parliament and perhaps you could say how you see that happening and whether you welcome that feed in and how you're going to make it work properly as far as the government's concerned I think the relationship between the two committees is not really for me it's for you you know obviously we well unless I'm missing something I mean I think it's not for me to issue instructions or advice to Parliament with respect I think it's for Parliament to decide but I think it's right and proper that there's a courteous positive engagement and you know I took part yesterday in their proceedings and I rearranged my day so to do because I attached importance to making myself accountable to Scotland's MPs who've decided quite fairly to inquire into something of great reasons you know and I hope the points I'm making about food production I'm making a bit of an impact here there's a real debate here that needs to be had yes the environment's absolutely fundamental is important that we continue to support it but not that we just abandon the support for farming that seems to me to be an extraordinary proposition and yet that's virtually the proposition that the UK Government is proposing and I did ask yesterday whether any of the MPs involved for your own party would be happy about the prospect of their constituents ceasing to receive the financial support which is necessary for the functioning and continuance of their business but I didn't catch any answer to that particular question but perhaps my job was to answer the questions on that occasion. The next question is from Gail Ross. Cabinet Secretary as you'll be aware the National Council of Rural Advisers published their final report last month will you be implementing the recommendations? Yes well I welcome the report we are studying this in detail it describes why rural matters what rural things what rural needs what happens next it has a suggested set of actions it worked very hard going around the country holding 11 events and it had a consultation with 130 responses it makes a series of recommendations we're looking at these at the moment but broadly speaking we're very happy with the recommendations and we think that they're well worthy of this committee looking carefully at them with a view to taking forward considering the recommendations further and our taking them forward I'm particularly keen to continue the focus on the rural economy and have a rural economy action group to guide the work that needs to happen during the transition towards mainstreaming the rural economy and I commend the report to members Just to follow up on the action group will you inform the committee once you know what the membership of the group will be? Of course in respect of all these matters will seek to continue to keep the committee advised Thank you John, I think that yours is the next question Yes, thanks very much Again, as I understand it the new farmers entrance scheme it was announced during August that it would close at the end of August which seemed a quite short notice but understand that may have been because the funds had all been used up can you tell us going forward how we would encourage new and especially younger farmers to move into farming? I have to say we had somebody last night at one of the receptions in Parliament a younger woman who came across very impressively and I wonder how you see that going forward Okay We have provided a total of 22.4 million of grant commitments in respect of new entrance schemes and the number of people assisted under the start-up and capital grant schemes total 1138 and the new entrance scheme is now exhausted as the member has said and the funds were used up so the scheme was fully utilised but not before kickstarting over 250 new agricultural businesses and funding hundreds of other business development projects we are also working with the phone group farming opportunities in other ways and Henry Graham is looking at that they have helped to provide over 60 more land opportunities across mainly the national forest estate but also land owned by Scottish Water HIE and Highland and East Lothian council and they are beginning the process to identify further opportunities in 2019 and I was very pleased that the scheme was recognised by European research body as an inspiration so it was with some regret that we were not able to continue the funding that was exhausted in respect of this the last thing I would say is that we do envisage and I hope that across the all the parties support exists for this that one of the things that we would wish to try out in our stability simplicity approach to identify a wider way in order to support new entrants and particularly younger people into farming there are many different ways not only financial but through the provision of advice and mentoring and matching for example that this can be done and I think and I should say it's not easy it's not easy to provide support and then guarantee that someone will make a success of a business and then one needs to have a motivated determined impressive hard working man or woman or couple to take that forward so these are not easy things to be efficacious and I don't think actually just signing a check is necessarily the be all and end all to this respect but plainly it's an important facet so I hope that there's a commitment across the board convener that we will come back to look at what might be a new substantial policy in Scotland I can just follow up clearly we're looking at the whole picture of support for farming going forward so it's possible that attracting new people into farming would be part of the bigger new overall package or we might have a separate package for new farmers but that's too early to decide on that yet I think this is an option for future policy post Brexit or not post Brexit actually in either event I think it's something we need to come back to and I hope that we will thank you John and the last lot of questions are from Richard Lam yes cabinet secretary can I turn to the subject of small land holding small land holdings are tenanted holdings under the small land holding act 1886 1931 typically farming 50 acres or less now combine the two questions that I have what insights have recent research and publications on small land holdings provided do they indicate that particular action is required and do you intend to ask the Scottish Land Commission to review the law on small land holdings and to recommend reforms cabinet secretary sorry I think you indicated you want to ask if the Scottish law commission not land commission not if I said land commission I do apologise thank you Richard cabinet secretary we did commission Sir Crispin Agnew to write a guide to small land holding legislation which was published on the 25th of September we haven't had any feedback on it yet but there has been interest from some small landowners who have been in touch with us for a copy in addition to that we appointed Newcastle University to consider the changes to ownership of small land holdings over time and the feasibility of establishing an administrative register of all small land holdings and this work is completed and it will be published shortly for those with an interest in this area and they concluded that it would be possible to re-establish a register of small land holders the cost is estimated at 130,000 there are only 68 small land holders in response to the question about the Scottish law commission Mr Lyle asked the 17 review showed strong evidence that small landowners are landlords and in some cases legal practitioners have not understood the legislation that governs them and this lack of understanding may have contributed in the past to disputes and rises of practices that are out of step with legislation and that is why I commissioned the guide from Sir Crispin that makes legislation more accessible so I think the guide has just been published we haven't had a great deal of reaction to that I think it would be premature to consider the question of whether a reference to the Scottish law commission is appropriate having just published the guide which I think Parliament had sought that we do in order to bring some clarity to the legislation so I think we should look at that first digest that and then decide whether or not we need to do anything else Thank you I can confirm Sir Crispin Agnew's briefing is extremely useful and actually quite easy to understand so thank you for that I think that that brings us to the end of the questions that we've got I'd like to thank you Eleanor and David for your contributions Ian and Douglas were supporting I think from the side were excused Ian you did say something as well Douglas you sat on the sidelines but thank you all for the evidence that you've given and I'd now like to close the meeting