 Fy adam i gael y maen nhw i'n blynyddo i gaelwch yn gwybod dechrau ei prydau i gaelwch awr, i chi ddadwch ei gaelwch ond hwn yn ddigwydd arweinyddol, i gaelwch arweinyddol i gaelwch i gaelwch i gaelwch i Gaelwch angen i gaelwch y gaelwch Arwyr iawn, ac mae oes yn ddigwydd ar gyfer amddangos ei hwn ym 4 ym Mhwyloedd, sy'n gweithasiat hynny i gaelwch i Gaelwch wedi eluqau i gaelwch am brincwyr a chyfnodol a ffysgwr. Felly mae'r gweithio i gweithio gweithio a gweithio gweithio i gael eich eu dweud a chael ei ddechrau ddegliannolau, Jobs? A gweithio i ddegliannolau ddegliannolau a chael ei ddegliannolau i gael i ddechrau ddegliannolau, Llywodraeth, mae'r ffordd ach terroristiaid yn gyfrifio agri-cultiol. The committee will now take evidence from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on agriculture, fisheries and issues following on from the UK's departure from the EU. The Secretary of State is taking part in the meeting via a video conference and I'd like to welcome you, Secretary of State, to this meeting and I'd also like to welcome anyone watching this session on Facebook Live. Secretary of State, would you like to make a brief opening statement to the meeting? We've allowed you four minutes where I'm very conscious we have a lot of questions to get through and we are tight for time so if you'd like to make an opening statement now, Secretary of State, that'd be appreciated. That's very kind of you, you know. I just want to say I'm grateful for the opportunity to give evidence. I'm sorry I'm not with you in person. I hope I have the opportunity if you'd like me to come in person to do so before March 2019 and simply to put on the record how grateful I am to officials within the Scottish Government and indeed to ministers as well for the co-operation that we've had as we seek to make sure that Scotland's position as a high quality food producer is safeguarded and indeed enhanced as we leave the European Union. During the year that I've been in post I've had the opportunity to visit Scotland on a number of occasions, most recently of course for the Royal Highland Show at Ingolston last week and once again I was impressed by the energy, the entrepreneurialism and the imagination of Scotland's primary food producers and others in the food and drink industry and we also recognise as I know your committee recognises that food production and respect for the environment and enhancement of our of our countryside go together. They are two limbs and we can only make progress if we make sure that both are healthy. The first question is coming from John Mason. Thank you convener. My first question is around the area of the cap convergence review. We understand that because especially Scotland's average payments per hectare were lower than the EU average, that the UK received £190 million extra for that. However, having expected £190 million to come to Scotland, we received £30 million and the other £160 million went to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Now we understand there might have been a review about this. Can you update us at all about a review on this subject? Yes, I think that there are several issues there. It's a very fair point and you sum up the history absolutely correctly. That money of course has been allocated, is in the budgets of the various different governments, the UK government and the various devolved administrations and we have to respect the fact that decisions were made by the coalition government, which all the respective devolved administrations in the UK government have given effect to. But lying behind your question is I think a very important point that I freely acknowledge, which is that it's in the nature of the landscape, it's in the nature of the environment in Scotland and also in other parts of the United Kingdom, that the preponderance of less favoured areas, the nature of upland farming, imposes particular challenges that require a specific level of support. So I've said to the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary Ewing, that we need to look in the future at how we allocate funding across the United Kingdom in order to reflect that. I recognise that there will be different views about what happened in the past and how the money was allocated in the past, that we need to take into account as we look at funding in the future. So my aim, and I've been grateful for the support that's been shown by others for this, is to ensure that in the future we allocate funding in a way that's sensitive to the specific needs of each part of the United Kingdom. John. Now I had actually understood that Lord Buw had been appointed to conduct a review, but we're just waiting to hear when that review would take place. So do I take it from your first answer that there will not be a review about past funding but only consideration for future funding? There'll be a consideration of future funding in the light and in the context of the decisions that were taken on past funding. One of the things that I can't do, that none of us could do, would be to claw back money that's been spent, that's been in budgets that have already been allocated. And I know that there's a difference of opinions about the way in which the decision was taken over that allocation. Without prejudice to the positions that people took in the past, I've argued and I think this is the view of others that we can respect each other's differences over the past. What we need to do is to concentrate on the future in making sure that we allocate money fairly and that as we look to the future we can look at why decisions were made in the past and perhaps reflect on any mistakes or errors or misjudgments that might have been made then and allow those to inform the future. So what we're not doing is clawing money back. What we are doing is being aware that good arguments were made at the time and that we in good faith will honour the integrity of the individuals who made those arguments at the time and made those decisions at the time. Well, if I could just press you one more time on that. I mean, you did say that it's possible that a mistake or an error might have been made and in other parts of life mistakes and errors are made and then refunds are given by banks or a compensation is given when a mistake or an error is made. So are you saying that you would not even consider looking at that past money and reallocating it, which in the scheme of things is quite small by UK terms? Absolutly take your point, but I think that what I can't do and shouldn't do is to seek to punish or penalise people elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but you do make a fair and legitimate point and I think that it would be for the review to consider that argument alongside others. You've got the next question. Good morning, Secretary of State. My question focuses on future funding for agricultural support in Scotland. As we all know at the moment, 16 per cent of the funding that comes from the European Union to the UK comes to Scotland and it is ring-fenced. In other words, the Scottish Government can't spend it on other things like health education, whatever. My question is focused on this. Is it your intention to ensure that the current level of 16 per cent of funding that we receive in Scotland continue to receive it and that that will be ring-fenced and protected so that it can't be spent outwith the rural economy? Absolutly. In a nutshell, yes. Well, that's fantastic news. I'm really delighted that you've actually been able to confirm that. That is great. My supplementary question therefore is how do you envisage that 16 per cent of funding being ring-fenced? Is it through the common frameworks that want to be established across the UK? Will it be up to that spending within a common framework or will there be some leeway given to the Scottish Government to spend some of that money for agricultural support but outwith the framework or does it all have to be within the framework? I think that the nature of the framework is simply in order to ensure that we all understand that Scotland's food producers sell into the UK market and, of course, sell abroad. When they're selling into the UK market, we don't want there to be any barriers to Scotland's food producers being able to have consumers elsewhere in the UK buying their produce. That's the purpose of the framework. But within that, what I want to do is to continue to honour the devolution settlement so that should any future minister wish to allocate that money, the 16 per cent that we've talked about, in a slightly different way, they should be free to do so. I know that Fergus produced a paper last week that outlined proposals for future funding right up until 2024 where there was a difference of emphasis, not a dramatic difference of emphasis, but a difference of emphasis on how the money in that elongated transition period might be allocated. I think that, to my mind, that's absolutely the way that we should go. We should respect the devolution settlements. The money is there, how it's spent should be for the Scottish Government Minister to decide. I just wanted to make sure that that money will be ring-fenced for the rural economy as far as you are concerned. That is my belief, that's the basis in which I would proceed. The only thing that I would say is that, so far, I haven't had any indication from the Scottish Government that they would take any different view. Indeed, I suspect it might be the case that, in the future, we might see, particularly given the nature of Scotland's unique needs, or the unique needs of other parts of the United Kingdom, that we could contribute as a proportion of overall agricultural spending, an even bigger slice, possibly, to Scotland's and Northern Ireland's most possibly, possibly on the basis of the nature of the landscape, the unique challenges, some of the other factors. Again, I haven't centred that the Scottish Government takes a critical position on that, but one of the things, again, that I have to respect, is the autonomy of the devolution settlement. I think our position is, from your questions, Mr Rumble, is very, very similar. The one thing that I have grown, what's the word, careful about is trying to... The one thing I don't want to do is to tie the hands of this or any future Scottish Government beyond the commitments that we've just discussed. Secretary of State, can I ask you, just on ring ffancing, one of the questions that has been concerning people is the payment of pillar one and pillar two payments up until 2022 in their entirety, and whether that money will be guaranteed by the UK Government up until that stage? Yes. Our proposal is that all farm income is guaranteed right up until 2022 and in cash terms, absolutely, and it's also the case that if agreements have been entered into, which run beyond 2022, in particular under pillar two, that we would honour those as well. We've also said that it's our intention and here there's overlap between the Scottish Government position on our position, that we would continue to maintain area-based payments for a number of years after 2022. The Scottish Government has suggested that it would maintain them right up until 2024, but cap some of them. It's certainly the case that the agricultural transition that we envisage would last until at least 2024 as well, so there would be some maintenance of area-based payments right up until that point. Can I just push you slightly on that just to confirm that that includes payments relating to forestry, Secretary of State? My understanding is that it would, yes. The next question is from Peter Chapman. Good morning, Mr Gove. My questions are about the forthcoming UK agricultural and fisheries bills. You have said that the UK agricultural bill is essential to provide the legislative framework that therefore requires to continue to make payments to farmers and to attach conditions. So what will provide the legislative framework for Scottish farmers to continue to receive their direct payments? Will the UK agricultural bill only relate to deffra powers or does the Scottish Government need to bring forward its own legislation? Well, in certainly the case that right up until we leave the European Union, if we've got our withdrawal agreement and our transition agreement, we can carry on paying, as things stand, ideally we will want to bring forward our own agricultural bill in order to make provision specifically for England. One of the things we've done is that we've shared some of the clauses of that bill with the Scottish Government, with ministers and officials. My own view, and again I absolutely don't want to tie the hands of the Scottish Government, my own view would be that I would imagine the Scottish Government would want to bring forward its own agricultural bill alongside or just after we brought forward our agricultural bill in order to explain how direct payments and some of the criteria associated with it should be policed. I noted that Fergus indicated that he would like to remove some of the owner's EU bureaucracy that is tied to some of those payments and obviously were he to wish to do so. It might be the case that we would supply that bureaucracy UK wide. Fergus might want to go further than we did. That's a matter for discussion. If he did want to go further, then that would only reinforce the appropriateness of there being a separate Scottish farming bill in the Scottish Parliament. Thank you for that. What about the fisheries bill? I mean, what will that contain and how does that relate to Scottish fishing interests? We are hoping to publish a white paper that will lay out some of these issues as soon as we can, and then a fisheries bill we will follow towards the end of this parliamentary session. That fisheries bill should give provision for how we as the United Kingdom, for example, enter into negotiations on behalf of all the constituent parts of the UK with others, but it is also the case that we should specify the way in which the devolved arrangements work in the future, and we don't want to, for a moment, disturb those. We want to make sure that Scotland can continue to use the devolved responsibilities that it currently has to take advantage of the opportunities that flow, the sea of opportunities that flow from being outside the European Union. Just a final one, Mr Goff, if you could. You said the fisheries bill towards the end of this year, what about the agricultural bill? I think that's nearer to come on forward. Yes, you're absolutely right Peter, but I've said that I'd like the agricultural bill to be before the House of Commons, before we rise for our summer recess at the end of July. That's my high hope. If we don't quite meet that deadline, then certainly September when we return for our brief pre-conference session would be an appropriate time, so we're cracking the whip there. The fisheries white paper we hope to publish again before the house rises for its recess, and then the fisheries legislation, the fisheries bill would come in either towards the end of this year or maybe just at the beginning of 2019. I'm going to briefly bring in Stuart Stevenson for a supplementary question. The present arrangements, Mr Goff, for EU council meetings of one sort or another, are such that permit a devolved administration, ministers to act as UK ministers to sit in the chair? It doesn't happen very often, but the framework permits that. Do you envisage that in future that same permissions will exist in relation to provided we have an agreed UK line, of course, that ministers agree to? Devolved ministers might be though minister representing the UK and fisheries negotiations post EU? I'd have no problem with that still. Thank you, Secretary of State. The next question comes from the deputy convener, Gail Ross. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Mr Goff. In Scotland, the soft-fruit salmon farming and fish processing sectors are particularly dependent on migrant workers. The UK Government has said that it will design a new immigration policy based on the premise of controlled migration. Can you tell the committee what is meant by controlled migration, please? Yes, I think it's important that people have confidence that an independent country like the United Kingdom will be able to determine its migration policy in the interests of its economy by making sure that we have access to the workers we need, particularly the highly skilled workers that particular sectors need. But we can also at the same time show, as all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom have always wanted to show compassion towards people who may be fleeing persecution and who deserve the chance to make a new life for themselves in this country. But also, of course, we know that there's a greater degree of support for migration when individual countries feel that it can be managed and that you don't have, for the sake of argument, the right of unrestricted free movement. And it's certainly been observable that support for migration has risen since the decision to vote to leave the European Union and that across the United Kingdom there's a greater degree of support for migration. I think that's because people are knowing that they can outside the European Union manage the numbers who come here and are therefore more relaxed and more comfortable about being generous when we think about the numbers who should. I think that some of these sectors have already seen a fall in people wanting to come and work here from the European Union. So how will the UK Government address the issue of temporary and seasonal labour, permanent labour and skilled and unskilled labour for the farming and food production industries, knowing that we rely on it so heavily? You're absolutely right. We have relied on labour from abroad. I think that there are several points to bear in mind. The first is that, over time, the source of labour from different parts of the European Union in our agriculture and food production sectors has changed. So, a wee while ago it tended to be people from Poland or from the Baltic states now increasing its people from Romania and Bulgaria and that reflects the relative stage of economic development of those countries. As Romania and Bulgaria themselves become more successful economically, so they want naturally to have more of their workforce working in those countries, not going abroad. That's been the experience not just of the UK but of other countries in the west of Europe who've seen people from Eastern Europe, numbers of people from Eastern Europe drop in particular sectors. So, we all have to think about looking potentially further afield. It's not just an issue for the UK but an issue for other countries in Western Europe and that means that we will need to think in the future about how we can make sure that workers from say the Ukraine or other countries who want to come here can do so in an appropriate fashion. And of course, one of the things that I'm well aware of having visited soft fruit growers in Angus and elsewhere is that seasonal workers in particular are a critical part of making sure for the moment that growers can continue to run effective businesses. So, one of the things that we're considering is what the appropriate means in the future would be for facilitating seasonal workers in order to make sure that those businesses work. There's one other thing that I would say as well, which is that we all need the expertise that EU citizens provide, for example, the official veterinarians who make sure that our abattoirs and our meat production maintains the very, very high standards on which our reputations rest. And we want to make sure that we can continue to have access to that high-quality labour as well. All of these things help influence our approach towards migration. Thank you. One last question. Do you agree that it's time that Scotland had control over its own immigration policy in order for us to design a system that suits our needs? I think it's important that all the countries of the UK work together in order to ensure that the migration policy fits the needs of all. I know that in the past Jack McConnell, when he was First Minister, had an adjustment to migration policy in particular respect, I think to graduates, I think the most important thing that we should do is to work collectively and collaboratively as the four countries of the United Kingdom in order to make sure that migration policy works in all our interests, because our four economies are so highly integrated in the, and the challenges that face soft fruit growers in Angus are very similar to the challenges that face soft fruit growers in Surrey or in Kent. And by working together, we can make sure that we continue to be an attractive place to invest and to work. A brief supplementary from Stuart. I know, Mr Gove, you'll be aware that about 70 per cent of the workers in fish processing in the north-east of Scotland are non-UK citizens. Indeed, at Peterhead academy, there are 28 languages, so it's not merely EU. Are we going to be able to protect access to labour not simply from the EU, but from across the world? Because as we change migration policy, there are clear risks to a very valuable north-east industry, and in particular about 50 per cent of the people who come to fish processing. This is my number, so you should not rely on it to appear to want to settle rather than simply be visitors. I can understand why anyone who's visited the north-east of Scotland would want to settle there. It's the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom, so once you're there, why would you ever want to leave would be my view. More broadly, I would say that we absolutely do need to make sure that the processing and the catching sector have access to the labour that they need, and you're quite right and well aware that that labour doesn't just come from the EU 27, and that's why I think that we need to have a migration policy that is open to skilled workers who can make a fantastic contribution to our economy from across the world. Thank you. The next question is from Colin Smyth. Good morning, Mr Gove. A current EU membership allows participation in three EU protected food name schemes, which gives protections against imitations throughout the EU. This issue obviously remains unresolved, so can you tell us what exactly are your proposals regarding EU protected food name schemes once the UK leaves the EU? We want to make sure that geographical indications are recognised as we leave the European Union, so does the EU. We have a number which really matter to us from Orkney to Arbroath. It's integral to make sure that the reputation of Scottish and indeed UK produce is protected and enhanced as we leave the EU, but the EU has many, many geographical indications that they would also like to see protected and preserved as we leave, so this is part of the on-going negotiation between ourselves and the EU in order to make sure that our respective interests are both protected. Can you tell us then, because this is unresolved, and you say it is part of those negotiations, when will producers of products such as Scotch, Whiskey actually have certainty regarding their protection? When will it be enshrined in UK law? At the moment, there is a debate as to whether or not geographical indications should be part of the withdrawal agreement, which is, as you know, the formal technical legal text, which is required under article 50 to give effect to the UK leaving the EU or whether it should be part of the future economic partnership. We are anxious—the UK Government is anxious—to be as clear as possible, as early as possible, but, of course, in any negotiation with the EU, we have to respect their autonomy and their desire to make sure that their interests are protected and preserved. But, as I say, my judgment is that because there are many, many more geographical indications that EU nations have compared to the UK, that they would want to have those guarantees and those safeguards, so it's in their interests—much as it is in their interests—to guarantee tariff-free access for agri-food products across the UK-EU border. But the other thing that I would say is that we know that Scotch, Whiskey, Scotch, Salmon have been huge success stories. One of the reasons why they have been success stories is that it's not just the important geographical indication and protected status that that brings that's been instrumental in generating success. It's also been the hugely successful marketing of individual brands and individual companies that have acquired a worldwide reputation for those amazing high-quality produce. But you do accept that if those current protections are not in place for something like Scotch, Whiskey, as soon as somebody can't imitate it, they will certainly imitate it. Well, it's important that we get the best protection possible, of course, for Scotch, Whiskey and for other brands. One of the things that I want to do is to make sure that we get and we maintain all the protections that we have at the moment and we provide a strong platform for the future for these brands to meet the growing demand that there is. That's absolutely something in which my department, the Department for International Trade and the Scottish Government are 100 per cent aligned. Thank you. The next question is from Jamie Greene. Thank you. Good morning, Mr Gove. One of the most vocal and perhaps discursive areas in recent months in this Parliament has been around common UK frameworks and the devolution of powers after the transition period. I was wondering, Mr Gove, if you could outline some of the areas where you think there is a need for common UK frameworks in specific relation to agricultural regulation and policy and why you think those areas are important. Well, I think that, to take one, animal and plant health would be one. What we want to do is we want to provide consumers across the United Kingdom with a guarantee that the same standards, the same high standards to which we're all committed, are maintained across the UK. Now, my approach is that I'm always, always open to an argument from any devolved administration about a way in which it might want to innovate or to do something better. I think part of the strength of devolution is that individual governments and parliaments can often generate ideas about progress that the rest of us will want to follow. However, there are some areas where frameworks provide everyone with a reassurance and a safety net that we would all buy into. As I say, animal and plant health would be my number one area where I would imagine that all of us would agree that we could all benefit from an effective UK-wide framework. Thank you for that. I'm just moving that discussion on not just around common frameworks, but actually around where each respective government is going in terms of policy and subsidy strategy. One of the complaints about CAP has been that it hasn't always been fair or indeed beneficial to UK and Scottish farmers and that the subsidy structure is indeed overly complicated in many respects. Can I ask for your views on whether you think it is likely that we will have UK-wide policies around future agricultural subsidies or is it your intention that we have UK common frameworks around regulation and trade, for example, but devolved responsibilities around subsidies and funding? Where do you think we're heading post-transition on that? I think your point is absolutely correct. We do need to have those. One of the reasons I mentioned animal and plant health is that it will make it much easier for us to secure new opportunities to trade abroad and to make sure that our producers have improved access to markets abroad. However, you're also right that there are problems with the existing common agricultural policy subsidy approach and the different constituent nations of the United Kingdom can all do better. One of the things that I mentioned briefly earlier is that Fergus's proposals for life outside the European Union envisage the delivery of support to the farming sector without some of the bureaucracy that the EU currently imposes. I think that that's absolutely the right way to go. Just as a brief supplementary for me on to our themes, whose responsibility is it then to develop agricultural policy in the long term? Not during transition, but after we leave the EU, is it the Scottish Government? Is it the UK Government? Is it a bit of both? There's been a lot of discussion around that in the Hollywood Chamber that the Cabinet Secretary in Scotland says he can't really develop policy until he has some guarantees of long-term funding, for example. I think there's still a lot of discussion around where the money is coming from and whose job it is to develop agricultural policy. So what are your views on that? My view is that it's a devolved matter and that it's for the Cabinet Secretary and the Scottish Government to do that. We've provided a plan and an outline for what we want to do in England and we've also provided a degree of guarantee on funding, which is actually, what's the word, more detailed than any other country in the EU has. At the moment, the common agricultural policy in its current form ends in 2020 and while there's active discussion about what might replace it, folk don't know. So you have a clearer guide. The cash commitment that we've made is up to 2022. The fact that we've talked about an agricultural transition and direct payments continuing thereafter. A clearer guide to the backdrop here in the UK than you have anywhere else in Europe. But within that, I think that you are absolutely right. Fergus has laid out what might happen until 2024. I think the question that people are asking is great, but what comes after that? We've outlined what we believe is an approach which helps to make farming more productive in England and also to safeguard the environment. The sense that I have is that the people in Scotland want the Scottish Government to be a little clearer about what that future direction of travel might be post 2024. Thank you. The next question is from Stuart Stevenson. I think that my first question is probably a fairly brief one in relation to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which has been so valuable to many of Scotland's coastal communities. I wonder if you can tell us a little bit about the shared prosperity fund, which I understand will replace it, and how that will work in relation to the distribution of money? Yes. We had a meeting of government ministers about a fortnight ago to discuss the shared prosperity fund. One of the points that I made then is that we acknowledge that the purpose of the shared prosperity fund is to support those parts of the United Kingdom that most need government support in order to improve productivity and to make sure that economic development is fairly spread. As we both know, two of the areas where we need to do more are rural areas and coastal communities because of decisions that have been taken in the past. One of the points that I made at that meeting is that we need to make sure that rural development programmes are effectively funded through our shared prosperity fund alongside anything that we might do in terms of agricultural support and also that we need to make sure that our replacement to the EMFF, make sure that there is proper investment in coastal communities, not least because, as research which the Scottish Government itself has commissioned has shown, when we take back control of our territorial waters, we will be landing hugely more fish. We have the potential to land hugely more fish than we do at the moment. If we are going to take advantage of that sea of opportunity, then we need to make sure that we have got investment in our harbors and the other facilities that are required alongside it as well. You have just used the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's phrase, sea of opportunity. I want to ask questions about that, because it is quite clear in the fishermen's minds that the UK and Scotland should assume responsibility over who fish is and how they fish in our waters up to 200 miles. I know that UK ministers have discussed some of that with, for example, the Danish Government and with the Dutch Government. If the Danish part of my family went and asked the Danish minister what they had taken as to future commitments in relation to their rights to fish in our waters, what do you think the Danish minister should say? I hesitate to offer advice to a minister in the Scottish Government. I would certainly pause before offering advice to a minister in the Danish Government, but your question is a very fair one. I'd say two things. As we leave, we become an independent coastal state. That's a matter of law. That means that we can decide. We negotiate access to our own waters. We can decide who comes here, but I think everyone acknowledges that it will be the case in the future that, just as a Scottish fisherman will want to fish in other countries' waters, so we will allow fishermen from other nations to fish here, but it will be in our terms. So we will make sure that we negotiate every year, as independent coastal states like Norway and Iceland and the pharaohs do access to our waters. I think that other countries will well understand how that procedure operates. You used the phrase, we will negotiate on our terms and we will do so every year. Am I therefore to take, Mr Gove, that no commitment to allow foreign vessels to fish in our waters will last for more than a single year? Well, again, it's for negotiation. One of the things that we might want to do as a country is to come to an arrangement with others over the nature and the scale of the access that they have, but it would be our decision, but it's in the nature of any negotiation for us to make those decisions on the basis of what's in our sovereign interest, the interest of our coastal communities, the interest of our catching fleet. I can bring Peter in and I'll come back to you. Finish that little bit. I think I'll bring Peter in and come back to you. Thank you, convener. Mr Gove, you know that the implementation period meant that we were in the CFP until the end of December 2020. My question is it's important for our fishermen to be involved in the negotiations on quota at the November, December quota discussions, otherwise we'll be shut out from having any input into our quota allocation for another full year. Can you guarantee that our fishermen will be involved in that negotiations at November, December 2020 going forward? Yes. The catching community, the processing industry, we want to make sure that we hear their voices, that they're involved in helping to ship the negotiations. There will be a December council obviously in 2018, which will be broadly the rules as before, but in 2019, sorry, 2020, the final December council, we'll be negotiating in a different position to that, which we've been negotiating before, and we want to make sure that we're ready for that and ready for the opportunities that will come from us being fully outside of the CFP from 1 January 2021. Just to close this off before I move to another brief topic, at the moment about 60 per cent of UK fish is caught by other nations. In Norway it's about 16 per cent, Iceland about 10 per cent, but both Iceland and Norway get something for that, whereas it's not clear that the UK and Scotland in particular gets anything for the 60 per cent. Are we quite clear that when we negotiate trades across borders of necessity, we will have to do in future as we do now, that there will be a benefit derived from letting foreign vessels come into our economic area out to 200 miles? Yes, absolutely, and you put the case very well. Sorry, I'm going to come back to you if I've got time at the end, because I would like to bring in one or two other people, and Richard Lyle, you're the next person on the question. Good morning, Mr Gove. Can I turn to the subject of forestry? The UK is now the second largest net importer of forest products in the world, second only to China. The UK imports 80 per cent of wood that it consumes, and the vast majority of it is softwood, which can be grown very well in the UK. Post-Brexit, will the UK Government try to reduce our reliance on imported wood as part of its new international trade strategy? Yes, absolutely. One of the things that we are committed to as a government on a UK level is to planting more trees and to supporting the forestry sector. You're right, that as countries go, the UK is, as a whole, deforested, or that the amount of forest cover that we have, the strength of our forestry sector, is less than it should be. Now, there are some reasons, I think, why under the operation of the common agricultural policy we haven't properly incentivised forestry, we haven't supported forestry in the way that we should have done. I should commend the Scottish Government and Fergus Ewing for the energetic way in which he's championed forestry, and in the most recent conversation that I had with Fergus just last week, he made a very generous offer there to have the Scottish Government help the UK to make sure that we had an increased supply of domestic timber, and that is something that I will want to take forward. The premise of your question, I think, is a fair one, and the outcome that you want us to see is one that we do want to achieve. In your 25-year environmental plan, it made a commitment to plant 180,000 hectares of new woodland by the end of 2042. That means that an average planting target of 7,500 hectares, which is half the Scottish Government's target of 15,000 hectares each year by the middle of the next day decade. Do you think that Scottish target is too ambitious, or is the English target not ambitious enough? I think that those different targets reflect the geography of our two different countries. The key lesson that many of us have learnt from forestry expansion in the past is that you need to have the right trees and the right locations. With that wanting to go into some of the problems that we had with planting in the flow country in the past, in too much detail, we need to make sure that we plant appropriately. Scotland has both the geography and the willingness to be able to meet ambitious targets, the targets that we have in the 25-year environmental plan. We will, of course, revisit it. It is a living document in the future to see if we should be more ambitious, but it is in the very nature of the specific geography and constraints in England that there are sites and locations that would not be suitable for forestry. We need to reflect that in our plan. If I can relate back to farming subsidies, to Jamie Greene, you said that you had already given the Scottish Government the information on the funding of the farming subsidies post-Brexit. Can you tell me when you did that? Yes, we have done so in correspondence on a number of occasions and also in meetings that I have had with not just the Scottish Government but other devolved administrations as well. Was that recently in the last couple of months or six months ago? I can share the correspondence that we have had. Last week, we had a brief conversation with Fergus at the Royal Highland Show. Before that, we have had regular meetings. The last time that we met as a group of devolved administrations was in Edinburgh more than six weeks ago, and we had a discussion then about future financing in which a number of questions were raised and addressed, some of which were subsequently addressed in correspondence between myself, Fergus and Leslie Griffiths. The Scottish Government has the numbers, the actual millions that you are going to ensure are going to be paid up post-Brexit. I think that we have given, as I mentioned earlier, more guarantees about the future of agricultural funding than it is possible for any other European country to give. We have said that there will be guaranteed funding for agriculture in cash terms at the same level right up until 2022. As I mentioned earlier in response to Jamie's question, the EU has its current common agricultural policy funding guaranteed only until 2020, and they are debating at the moment what might happen thereafter. The challenges that they have are that, now that the UK is a net contributor, it is leaving the EU, they have to try and work out how they are going to make sure that their common agricultural policy works, with simply less pennies to go round. The next question is from John Finnie. Good afternoon, Secretary of State. The implications for Scotland of the UK's departure from the EU is the title of this session and it peppers a lot of the work of the Parliament, as you will understand. You mentioned, if I know you to correctly, that you had been several times in Scotland and you hoped to be here before March 19. This is a unicameral setup, and the role of committees in scrutinising is vital. Do you want to take the opportunity to apologise to the committee for strating our efforts to scrutinise the Scottish Government due to your not making yourself available until the day before the Parliament goes into recess? I am very happy for you to answer that question. A point has been made by Mr Finnie. If you want to answer the question, I am delighted you do that. Thank you. I would apologise for any discrepancy. I have tried to make myself available to Scottish ministers and I am now making myself available for questioning and I have made myself available to Scotland's food producers and to Scottish citizens on a number of occasions. We do not keep a leak table of the number of times that UK secretaries of state have been in devolved administrations, but I think that I would be happy to be corrected that I visited Scotland in the last year more often than any other UK cabinet minister. That is noted, Mr Gove. Of course, the question was about attendance at this meeting and there have been several occasions where meetings have been scheduled and cancelled. Of course, our job to scrutinise the Scottish Government, I believe, has been hindered by that, but perhaps I can move on to a number of questions, please. Secretary of State, it is about the consultation on the live animal exports, which is something that the UK will require to pick up on. You have issued a call for evidence on controlling live exports for slaughter and to improve animal welfare during transport. People would understand that export for breeding is an invariably high-value stock, which is well looked after. The issue of slaughter is important, but I want to ask you about another category, which is the category of export for processing, which, as I understand it, is the fattening for eventual slaughter. There is a concern that there is a potential loophole in this consultation where animals, which are not being immediately slaughtered, could still be the subject of export. Can you comment on that, please? The call for evidence is precisely that. It is intended to ensure that the arguments that you make and the arguments that others have made are properly reflected. One of the things that I should say is that, last Thursday, when I was talking to the NFU Scotland, their representatives made a particular point, of course, about the transport of animals from Orkney and Shatland to Aberdeen for precisely the reasons that you alluded to. One of the things that we want to do is to make sure that any framework that we have in the future and the approach that we have in the future respects the needs of Orkney and Shatland farmers and the way in which their transport of animals from the islands to the mainland is integral to their business model. Yes, certainly. As a representative of the Highlands and Islands, I absolutely understand it. It is the highest standard that applies there. The concern is about… Absolutely. Yes. There is this concern about this word, processing, and as I understand it, Finans is aware that there are thousands of calf-sleeves Scotland each year for processing, and those may well be slaughtered within days of arriving at these destinations. The destinations can quite often be Spain. Indeed, it has been suggested to be North Africa, and the route taken as they are exported from Scotland into and over the north of Ireland and through the Republic and shipped from there. I hope that you can share the evidence and those who have shared evidence with you can share it with us so that we can consider that as we think about what the right regulatory approach should be. As you quite rightly point out, we are very proud of the high standards of animal welfare that we have across the United Kingdom, and part of the purpose of the call for evidence is to make sure that, as we leave the European Union, we can uphold the very highest standards. That is very reassuring. Can I ask the Secretary of State about the level of co-operation with the Scottish Government about that? I asked questions of cabinet secretary, Mr Ewing, recently, and he made the comments about the island to the mainland movement. Of course, that is not the concern, it is the longer journeys that the concern is. I understand that. Our focus is energetic in making this case to us, but we absolutely appreciate these broader animal welfare concerns that you have raised, and I believe that the Scottish Government is sensitive to those as well. Secretary of State, can you comment if whether there has been an assessment made on the impact a full ban would have on the agricultural sector? We are in the process of gathering the evidence in order to make such an assessment. Some more general questions now from individual members. The first one is from Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener. I would like to touch on something around trade and its relationship with agriculture in the UK. One of the opportunities of leaving the U is the UK's ability to strike up new and interesting deals with third-party countries in other parts of the world. How do you think we can strike that important balance between protecting our domestic agriculture industries whilst balancing the need to do these new deals? By that, I mean the fears among some in the farming community around the flooding of the market with new products from countries where we do these trade deals. How do you think your voice will be heard amongst your cabinet colleagues when they are striking trade deals to make sure that the interests of UK and Scottish farmers is at the forefront of any deals that we do? The first thing to say is that there is unity across the government that we must not, as we strike new trade deals, undermine the high standards of animal welfare or high environmental protection standards that we have here because produce, whether it is Scottish or elsewhere in the UK, relies on a quality hallmark in order to ensure that it commands a premium price. We are not going to erode those standards. My colleagues from Liam Fox, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from David Davis to the Prime Minister have all reinforced that message whenever there has been an opportunity to do so. I will take two examples or try and be relatively brief. It is also the case that increased export access can help domestic producers. We know that, for example, there is a currently declining demand for sheep meat in the UK. Now, I think that is a shame. I want to do everything I can in order to encourage people to and enjoy and to appreciate Scottish lamb UK sheep meat more generally, but it is a fact at the moment. There are, however, growing markets in the Middle East and elsewhere for UK sheep meat that we should, I hope, access, which will make sure that upland farmers have a secure future. There is another area as well. When it comes to pig farming, obviously a big concern in the northeast. We know that there are parts of the animal that are not necessarily the consumer's favourite here, but are very attractive in other export markets. If we manage to get more exports into those markets, that means that one half of the animal is at work and can be sold there. The other half of the animal can be sold and consumed here, and that means that we can have a better way of satisfying domestic demand here, as well as earning some export to all those too. Trade in those ways can help us to ensure that our domestic producers are in a stronger position. The next question is from John Mason. Thank you very much, Mr Gove. I wanted to have another go at what was going to happen after 2022. Mr Lyle and Mr Green both asked you about that. I think that the committee is frustrated because we are hearing from Mr Ewing that he cannot plan ahead beyond that, and you are telling us that you are open to plans. Under the EU, Scotland has a complete freedom to do what it wanted under the EU rules, which could be different from England. How much freedom does Scotland have to do exactly what it wants in the future? For example, if we want to blur the line between agriculture and forestry, do we have complete freedom to do that, or is there the possibility that the UK will intervene on that? My view is that we don't want to interfere, take a single power, abrogate the freedom and maneuver of the Scottish Government at all. No one has put to me any good reason why we should do so. I have no appetite or desire to do so. My view is that, as we leave the European Union, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government acquire more powers. That is a good thing, too. The next question is from Mike Rumbles, followed by John Finnie. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to follow up on your answers to John Finnie about giving evidence to the committee. I have just first prefaced the question by saying that I think that your answers to me earlier on were excellent and very helpful. You may not be aware, but I don't know if you are, but 18 months ago in the Scottish Parliament, we passed a unanimous motion requesting Fergus Ewing to start designing a bespoke system of agricultural support in Scotland. Every time Fergus Ewing has appeared before the committee and made a statement in Parliament and to our questions, he has consistently come back and told us that he cannot possibly proceed with this because he hasn't, I'm afraid, according to him, his evidence to this committee had from you the detail of financial support available for him. He says that he cannot possibly produce the plan without the financial support. You are now telling us that you've told Mr Ewing some time ago that he's got all the information that he needs to design such a system. What the point I'm trying to make—perhaps John made it a little bluntly than I am—would have been immensely helpful for our role in holding the Scottish Government to account if you had been able to come to give us that evidence at an earlier point. Taking evidence from you helps us to do our job and holding the Scottish Government to account, so I hope that perhaps you could appear more regular—this is the first time you have appeared before the committee—to be immensely helpful if we could keep that dialogue going. Absolutely, and I absolutely take your point. I'd be delighted to do so. Thank you, and Secretary of State, I'm sure we'll welcome the opportunity to question you more. I'm afraid that we have time for one more question, which is from John Finnie. Thank you, convener. Secretary of State, I'm referring to a document from February 2018, Health and Harmony, the Future of Food, Farming and Environment in a Green Brexit, and in particular the passage on devolved powers in paragraph 7. It's fairly lengthy, so I'll not go into it. I'll just perhaps quote the last sentence if I may please, and I quote from paragraph 7. It is a Government expectation that the process will lead to an increase in decision-making powers for each of the devolved administrations. Secretary of State, can you outline what additional decision-making powers you're referring to in that sentence, please? Yes. I think that there'll be now—I hope—the opportunity, and it touches on what Mike Rumbles was talking about, for the Scottish Government to spell out in greater detail how it might design schemes to support, as Scottish farmers, both to improve food production and also to safeguard the environment. My view is that outside the European Union we have the opportunity to design different methods of support. The Scottish Parliament, we discussed earlier, will have the money, and it will be for the Scottish Parliament free of some of the constraints that the EU imposed to decide how that money should be spent in order to support the rural economy, food producers, environmental interests, and what I hope we'll see is within the UK framework, which safeguards animal and plant health and other environmental standards within that, there'll be scope for creativity, and it may well be the case that, as we've seen from Norway and Switzerland, that you can have countries outside the EU committed to high standards with improved rural environments and also very healthy export-led food production sectors. Thank you very much indeed. I'm conscious that we've come to the end of our time. I personally would like to thank you, and I know that the committee would welcome your attendance at a meeting, and we found this very useful with the video setup. We do hope that next time we'll be able to encourage you to come to Scotland and appear before in front of the committee. I think that that would be extremely helpful. I would like to thank you for taking the time today to give your evidence, and I'd like to thank all the viewers on Facebook Live for watching this. That, Secretary of State, concludes our business today, and therefore I'd like to close the meeting. Thank you again.