 I would like to reconvene this meeting of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and welcome people back to the meeting. Can I just, before we go any further, ask members if there are any declarations of interest that they wish to make before this session? Peter. Yes, convener, I want to declare that I am a member of a farming partnership in the northeast of Scotland. Stewart. Registered. I'm the joint owner of a small registered agricultural company. Stewart. Thank you. I would also like to declare that I am a member of a farming partnership. Can I welcome the right hon. Michael Gove, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the UK Government? He's giving evidence today to us by video conference on the implications for Scotland of the UK's departure from the EU. We're going to go straight into questions, Mr Gove, and the first one is from Peter Chapman. Peter. Good morning, Mr Gove. Can I just say that I'm going to start off on the fisheries issue, because obviously it's an important thing in the northeast where I stay, and the UK fisheries bill in particular. On 24 April, Mr Ewing told this committee that it would be premature to bring fisheries legislation before the Scottish Parliament when we do not know what additional powers the UK fisheries bill would confer on Scotland. So my question is, can you clarify the additional powers that the UK fisheries bill will confer on Scotland, and how these could benefit the Scottish industry? Well, thank you very much, Peter, and my apologies to the committee that I can't be with you in person as I would have wanted to be, but I had the opportunity, obviously, of being in Scotland just under a fortnight ago in Aberdeen where I met representatives of the fish processing sector and the catching sector as well, and I'm looking forward to being back in Scotland at the end of this week. The fisheries bill will provide an opportunity for the Scottish Government to more effectively manage Scotland's fisheries resources, wherein a conversation with Fergus about exactly what he believes are necessary in order to make sure that Scotland can benefit. But it's the case that the Scottish Government themselves have acknowledged in the work that they've done, but leaving the EU and taking back control of our waters and leaving the common fisheries policy will mean that there are thousands of additional jobs and hundreds of thousands of additional pounds which can be injected into the UK economy. And I'm open to any proposals that Fergus has in order to make sure that the bill can work for all parts of the United Kingdom, but in particular, but the coastal communities of the north-east can benefit more. The fishing industry in the north-east looks forward to that happening. The basic question is, do we still feel that we can't come out by the end of 2020, as was originally envisaged? I do hope so, yes. That's absolutely the Government's plan. It all depends on whether or not our Parliament in Westminster passes the first human bill and the Prime Minister signalled last night that should be bringing it forward, God willing, in the first week after our Whitson recess. I hope that it's certainly the case, I think, that all Scottish Conservative MPs voted to support the withdrawal agreement at the last time of asking on March 29, and I think that's because there's a recognition that if you can secure that withdrawal. We have lost signal, so we'll just re-establish that. I'm just going to suspend briefly while we re-establish communications, so the meeting's suspended. Do you want to re-establish? Good morning, Mr Gove. Apologies for that. We've lost the connection. If I could hand you back to the convener. I'm now re-convening the meeting as we've managed to re-establish contact. I think you are in mid-flow, Mr Gove. Thank you very much, convener. I know I'm just responding to Peter's point about the transition period into 2020, and what we anticipate is to provide a parliamentary assessment that we will have a transition period up to the end of 2020, and then we'll be fully outside the common fisheries policy then, so that we can take advantage of the sea of opportunity that exists. We can achieve that. Another question, a very important question as well, Michael, what will replace the European Maritime Fisheries Fund, and how will that be administered in Scotland, and what sort of sums of money might be involved in that fund? Will it be similar to what we are receiving through the EMFF at the moment? I hope there'll be more. We want to replace the EMFF with a fund to ensure that postal communities can invest in a way that allows them to take full advantage of the additional opportunities that exist. It was the case that just last December the UK Government made available an additional £57 million on top of EMF funding, and that was distributed in accordance with the EMFF rules, so that the Scottish Government could make sure that its priorities were properly reflected. We do want to make sure, as I say, that more money is available, and we also want to respect the legislative and administrative competencies of the Scottish Government so that they can spend that money as they think appropriate. But as I was discussing in a different committee, there may be areas like, for example, investment in the redevelopment plans of Fraserborough Harbour, where the UK Government could go above and beyond in making sure that everything that the community there wants to see happen under the Scottish Government, I understand, is sympathetic to, can occur. My approach is absolutely to respect the devolution settlement, but whether the UK Government can go above and beyond in helping Scotland, then we should. Thank you. I'll bring in Stuart at this stage. Thank you, convener. Mr Gove, it's clear that there are considerable opportunities for the catching sector to increase the quantum of what they catch, but, of course, the economic value is delivered through the rather larger processing industry. Even as we are at the moment, there are significant vacancy levels in a number of processes, and I'm sure that you'll have heard that. The proposed immigration rules that the UK Government are currently engaged with set an income floor, which is somewhat above the level of many of the people who come and work in the industry in the north-east, with 30 per cent vacancies in certain processes already. How can the UK Government perhaps respond to that to ensure that we are actually able to capture the full economic value of the access to greater catches, because the processing sector needs to be partied to doing that? As you may know, I was in Aberdeen just under a fortnight ago, and I visited Nolan Seafoods exemplary fish processing company and talked to Michael Clarke there. I appreciated how important it was to have access to a wide range of sources of labour. While I was there, one of the members of the team was someone who had a long time ago worked for my dad. One of the other members of the team was someone who had come over from Poland and who had been trained by my uncle, so I appreciate the vital importance of making sure that you have access to talent, both homegrown and from abroad. You make a very good point that the Migration Advisory Committee's recommendation that we looked at making sure it was easier to get skilled workers, but pitching the level at which you defined a skilled worker was someone earning more than £30,000 a year wasn't actually responsive to the particular needs, not just of the fish processing sector, but of the food and drink sector overall, or of people who are highly skilled working in processing, who will earn less than £30,000 and we must make sure that we have access to that talent. Anyone who has seen the state of the art facilities that somewhere like Nolan Seafoods will appreciate that it is absolutely at the cutting edge of technology, but it's also the case that you need skilled manual labour alongside it in order to ensure that high quality seafood is delivered in a way that the customer wants. So you are absolutely right and one of the points that I've made to the Home Secretary and others is that we need to look flexibly in making sure that we interpret what a skilled worker is in lines with the needs of specific industries. Stuart, I may bring you back in a minute. I'd like to bring Maureen in, though, on some of the questions that you'd like to ask Maureen. Yes, thank you, convener. As a result of leaving the EU, the processing sector will now require export health certificates for every batch or every shipment of fish, which has an estimated cost of £15 million. Will the UK Government pick up that tab? I've said to Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary, that if he lets me know what it is that the Scottish Government needs, the UK Government stands ready to support. Stuart, do you want to come back in with him? I think it's covered, convener. Okay. Thank you. Then I think we'll move on to the next question, John Mason. Thanks very much, convener. It was really in the area of policy frameworks, common frameworks, all that kind of area. Initially, can you give us some idea of your thinking as to what will need legislation and what won't? Some areas have been working already that the Scottish and UK Governments have been co-operating without legislation. Do you anticipate that we need a lot of legislation or really not very much? I think it's a case-by-case question. I think, for example, all of us would want to see the internal market across the United Kingdom reserved, and that means that we need common frameworks on questions like animal health in order to ensure that Scottish farmers and food producers continue to have access to the rest of the UK market, and also that we all collectively benefit from high reputation that the whole of the UK enjoys. One of the things I'm grateful to the Scottish Government for doing is making their officials available for a variety of meetings which have enabled us to some of the statutory instruments in place, the Secondary Legislation in place, which ensures that we can deal with whatever outcome EU exit provides for. I've also said to the Scottish Government that the agriculture bill we are taking forward, we were always ready to provide additional time so that a schedule could be attached, which could make provision for whatever legislation changes the Scottish Government needs. I think that the Scottish Government's planning to bring forward its own bill will do everything possible in order to support them and to liaise with them in making sure that it works in the interest of all. I mean, hopefully this can all be done by negotiation and there'll be a good relationship between you and Ferris Ewing and other parties in the other four and the other two countries. But if there was a bit of disagreement around forming a framework, be it legislative or not, how would you see that being resolved? I think it can only be resolved through consensus and agreement and without wanting to be too starry-eyed about it, I would say that while Ferris Ewing and I have disagreements, I cannot fault him or the Scottish Government in the way in which when it comes to the practical implementation of all the measures that are required in order to ensure that we retain the benefits of the union, that Fagus and his team have been principled and determined in working in a constructive and pragmatic way. I mean, that's very encouraging. I'm just thinking, though, if there's a situation where we couldn't get agreement and perhaps Scotland, because agriculture is so important to us that we wanted to have a slightly higher standard than the rest of the UK, would there be flexibility for that? Or do you think that the UK would impose on Scotland the standards that it wanted? No, I think that there are some areas where it's absolutely right for different parts of the United Kingdom to want to do their own thing and that's the principle behind the devolution settlement, which I completely respect. So, again, if for the sake of argument, Fagus or any other Cabinet Secretary in the future wanted to have particular standards applying in any particular area in Scotland, we would do everything possible to facilitate that. Of course, it would be a matter for that Cabinet Secretary in Scotland's food processing or production sector to decide themselves the extent to which there might be challenges economically, but I would do everything that I could, and I'm sure my colleagues across the UK Government would do everything that they could in order to make sure that the ambitions of any future Cabinet Secretary could be met and also the interests of everyone across the United Kingdom could be protected. Okay, thank you. Thank you, John. The next question will be from Stuart Stevenson's chair. Thank you very much, convener. Mr Gove, clearly international treaties are a matter for the UK Government to deal with. I'm thinking, in particular, of the World Trade Organization and the rules in specific contexts to agriculture. There's a sort of open disagreement, I think, about devolved versus reserved implementation of the rules. I think that the Scottish Government has put forward some amendments to the UK agriculture bill, which the committee has rejected. Is that still on the agenda for ministers to consider responding and taking forward the amendments that the Scottish Government has proposed or close variants to them? You described the situation perfectly, Stuart. When it comes to notifying WTO about the level of agricultural support that we provide within the amber box and to make sure that we're WTO compliant, it's the UK Government's responsibility. For the reasons that you point out, that's the relevancy when it comes to concluding international treaties and satisfying international obligations. But within that, both the Scottish Government and the UK Government recognise that it is for the devolved administrations to decide how the amount that is being allocated is then spent. The disagreement or difference of views over how to achieve that shouldn't in any way obscure the basic agreement that we all have on the principles underlying. We've reached a satisfactory arrangement with the Welsh Assembly Government on this issue and conversations are ongoing with the Scottish Government in order to make sure that our shared ambitions can be met and that any difference of interpretation or opinion can be reconciled, whether through amendment or through a deeper shared understanding of what both Governments want to achieve? I understand the issue around amount. That will always be a subject of vigorous debate. I'm more focused on the implementation into domestic law of rules, where under common agricultural policy and indeed across a range of policies, the Scottish Government, as indeed is the case in Wales, have been responsible for the incorporation of the obligations that the UK has committed to into Scottish law, has been the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament working with the Scottish Government. I think that it is in that area that I'm perhaps trying to probe. I'm relatively encouraged by what you've said. Are you saying to us that you think we're going to get to a resolution whereby it will save work at Westminster if we do it to be blunt about it, otherwise there's danger that the work gets done twice, but recognising that when the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government does this, it is having to do so in relation to the help that the UK meets its international commitments to which it properly has signed up? Yes, that seems very fair. Mr Gove, just yesterday we had a statement in the Scottish Parliament from the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment saying that the UK Government or the Scottish Government had submitted amendments to the UK Agriculture Bill and that those were holding up the implementation or the construction of a Scottish Government agriculture bill. Would you support that assertion that was made yesterday or is that not true? I would not support that assertion. One of the things that I was struck by at a recent meeting that the NFU Scotland held was that the, joining all on behalf of the NFU Scotland, said that in effect that the Scottish Government had not provided as much detail about the future of agriculture in Scotland as we had provided so for the border and there are the means and the ability for the Scottish Government to do that. As I mentioned earlier, we said that we would be more than happy to provide a schedule as we had for the Welsh Assembly Government to our agriculture bill in order to meet all of the needs that Scotland might have in order to put the future of farming on a firma legislative framework. Again, I am more than happy to consider any suggestions, any thought, any recommendations from the Scottish Government, but I certainly do not think that it is the case that there has been any lack of willingness in the UK Government to help the Scottish Government to move on and provide farmers with a greater degree of certainty. Okay, and just to clarify, there's also some question of whether the Scottish Government needs an agricultural bill in Scotland to continue to make payments in Scotland. Could I clarify your position on that? I think that the Scottish Government could entirely have cooperated with the UK Government on the agricultural bill in order to provide that greater degree of certainty. The Scottish Government wants to introduce its own bill, we'll do everything possible to facilitate that, but it would certainly have been the case that a greater degree of certainty could have been provided if the Scottish Government had opted to use the UK legislation. Again, that is a decision for the Scottish Government. The deputy convener, Gail Ross, has a full-up question. Can you tell me exactly where the agriculture bill is in the system? Is it one of the pieces of legislation that has to be passed before we leave the EU? If so, is it going to be? At the moment, the agriculture bill has completed all its common stages apart from the report and third reading stage. In that stage, we can consider amendments, including those proposed by developed administrations, which UK parliamentarians have put their name to. We needed to pass the withdrawal agreement bill first before we can then pass the agriculture bill. Of course, we can formally leave the European Union without the agriculture bill having been passed, because, if we do formally leave in accordance with the withdrawal agreement, we'll be entering a transition period, and during that transition period, we have powers necessary in order to continue to provide payment. Thank you. We'll move on to the next question, which is Richard Lyle. Continue in regard to the cap converges review. UK Government has initiated an independent review into the factors that should be considered to make the funding for domestic farm support fairly allocated to the Administrations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We all know that Scotland is at the very bottom of the table of payments per hectare of any farmers in the EU. Mr Ewing has already told the committee that it was unthinkable that the review would not result in additional money coming to Scotland. Would you agree with that view? Is that right? If there is additional money, when will it be allocated? Because it's an independent review, I can't pre-empt its conclusions. I'm very grateful to the Scottish Government for recommending an excellent member of the panel in Jim Walker. We have representatives from each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and of course the chair of the review, Lord Buodonagor, is a crossbench peer of unimpeachable integrity who, as it happens, lives in Northern Ireland, works in London but hails originally from the Irish Republic. So it's been designed in a way in order to ensure that it is an objective and inclusive look at all of the issues that arose. It was a commitment undertaken by one of my predecessors on this role to set up this review. The terms of reference have been agreed and work is going on. We know the history, we know that consumers expressed in Scotland that convergence money was made available because of Scotland's unique geography and that that money should have been allocated in a different way. As I say, I don't want to pre-empt the conclusions of that review because I believe that its independence is important but of course whatever the conclusions of that review, the Government will take them seriously because we know that hard work is being undertaken by every member of the panel. You've also expressed a desire, you personally have expressed a desire to support hill farmers in Scotland. What does that mean in practical terms and what do you intend to do to ensure that that happens? Well there are three things I'd say. The first thing is that obviously the allocation of support for farmers across Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government and it will be the Scottish Government who will decide once we leave the EU how it allocates the money that we will provide to it and as you know it is the case that agriculture funding is not subject to the Barnett formula that because of the particular needs of Scotland and for that matter Wales and Northern Ireland Scotland enjoys a greater level of support for agriculture and the rural economy than the strict application of the Barnett formula would allow for and that is a good thing and will not change. So the first thing is we guarantee the funding the Scottish Government decides. The second thing is that within that we recognise south of the border that upland farmers face particular challenges. They're farming less favoured areas, the capacity to increase productivity is less but also they contribute not just to food production, high quality red meat, they also contribute to maintaining iconic landscapes and enhancing our environment in a significant number of ways and then again what am I call social ecology of parts of this country depend on upland farmers. Whether it's the southern uplands or the western highlands then we recognise that upland farmers, livestock farmers and indeed those who are critical to the health of our rural communities do need support in the future. I know that Fergus recognises this. I want to do everything I can to work with him recognising the competence of the Scottish Parliament in order to help and I stand ready at any stage to do what's required. So can I take from your comments that the funding that we presently received from the EU, once we leave the EU that the UK Government will ensure that all that funding which Scotland presently gets will be given to Scotland by the UK Parliament? Yes, we've guaranteed to preserve funding right up until 2022. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next question is from Maureen Watt. Thank you, convener. Mr Gove, you'll know that the EU is the largest export destination for ScotLam, yet if we come out of the EU without any deal they would face 40 to 50 per cent tariffs. So can I ask you, based on the UK's modelling, because we've seen, we've heard some really awful scare stories about there having to be mass slaughter of sheep. So based on your Government's modelling, what impact will no deal EU exit have on the Scottish sheep sector? You are absolutely right, Maureen, to point out that the sector of UK farming that will be most affected immediately by the impact of EU exit would be the sheep meat sector. It is the case that the principal export destination for sheep meat from across the United Kingdom is the European Union, France in particular, but other European Union nations as well. We have developed a scheme which, in the event of a no deal exit, would ensure that we can support the income of sheep farmers, and one of the models that we had in mind was a payment according to the number of greedy news that farmers had, which we believe was one of the most effective, though there are potentially other alternative methods of providing support. On that basis, there should not be any need for the types of measures that you mentioned, because it would be the case that the income of hill farmers and sheep farmers more generally would be protected from the initial shock that EU exit would bring to the sheep meat sector. I thank you for that answer, but could you be a bit more specific about what exactly you mean by protecting breeding use, you said, I think? It is a way of making sure that we safeguard the income of upland farmers and sheep farmers more generally by making sure that there is a payment additional support for their income, and one of the ways in which we can do that is having an additional payment related to the number of breeding news that each farmer has. Now, there are some arguments about different ways in which we can allocate that support. One of the things that I would say is that the Scottish Government would have its own ability to decide what method of support it thought was appropriate for sheep farmers, and I would work with the Scottish Government in order to demonstrate how we were applying the scheme south of the border, but if the Scottish Government wanted to apply the scheme or any parallel scheme in a different way, then we would look at that, and as I said to Fergus Tewing, if there are specific requests for additional expenditure that the UK Government can provide in order to help the Scottish Government, then we stand ready. Again, this is one of my strong beliefs that we respect the competence of the Scottish Parliament, we respect the devolution settlement, it's working well, but I don't think there should be any bar to the UK Government stepping in and helping the Scottish Government at any given point with additional resource or additional help, and that's one of the reasons why I think that we're stronger together, because the capacity of the UK Government to help the Scottish Government achieve what it wants is one of the virtues of the devolved settlement within our strong United Kingdom. I don't think what you've said with all due respect minister will be very welcome by the sheep farmers listening to this, but given the huge uncertainties that they face in planning their agriculture business as they go forward, would it not be wise to give to the farmers, the upland farmers, the 160 million convergence money that they're due? Well, I think a couple of things. The first thing there is that it's the UK Government that can make resource available to support upland farmers and sheep farmers more generally, and we stand ready to provide that support in any eventuality. The second thing is that if we want to avoid a no deal exit, which as you quite rightly point out is a particular challenge for the sheep meat sector, then one of the best ways of doing that is voting for the deal that the Prime Minister has brought forward. All 13 Scottish Conservative MPs have voted for that deal. Other Scottish representatives in the UK Parliament have not done so. Were they to do so, they would provide Scottish farmers with a degree of certainty for the future. The third thing about the convergence funding is that the BU review is looking at all of the issues concerned there. That review, as we mentioned earlier, is independent, and it has a nominee that the Scottish Government put forward, a very excellent Jim Walker. The right thing to do in order to provide farmers with certainty is to vote for the Prime Minister's deal or recognise the strengths that the UK extractor can bring in supporting agriculture overall, and then work with the independent BU review in order to ensure that we can give not just Scotland's farmers, but farmers across the UK a fair allocation of funding in the future. There are a few follow-up questions on this. I would like to bring in John Finlay and then Mike Rumbles. Thank you, convener. A couple of short supplementaries. Good morning, Secretary of State. Mr Algov, you recently stated, indeed, that the UK Government should be able to spend additional money in areas of devolved competence, such as Scottish farming and fishing, and, indeed, education. You will be aware that UK ministers do not have legal powers to interfere in devolved areas unless the UK Parliament chooses to amend the Scotland Act. Is it your intention to undermine Scotland in that way? I would never undermine Scotland. My commitment throughout my political life has been to strengthen Scotland's position, and Scotland is stronger in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have been granted additional powers by governments led by David Cameron and confirmed by Theresa May, and we've done so because we believe in devolution. But we also believe in the union, and we think it's important that where the United Kingdom Government can support the Scottish Government in discharging its responsibilities, that we should do so. So I absolutely respect the legislative competence and the administrative autonomy of the Scottish Government and think it's a good thing. But I also think, as I've said to Fergus, if the Scottish Government needs support at any particular point, then we stand ready to provide it. With respect to education, one of the things that I would say is that the education system overall in the United Kingdom benefits from the freedom of academics and students to study across the whole of the UK. But one of my concerns, since you mentioned it, is that over the course of the last few years that Scotland's schools have been falling behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in England, and one of the things that I want to do is to help the Scottish Government and work with John Swinney and others to see if some of the reforms that have helped to raise standards internationally can be introduced in Scottish schools, but of course that's a matter for the Scottish Government. I do think, however, that some of the proposals, since you mentioned education, outlined by Ruth Davidson just under a fortnight ago on how we can improve vocational education seem to me to provide a brighter future for Scotland students, not least when it comes to land-based education as well. And Ms Philly, if I could try and encourage you to stay on the remit of the committee, I'd be very welcome. John, I'm going to bring you back in and then come to Mike Rumble, so one more from you, John. Forgive me, convener. I did stroke out the words and in education, but I went on to say them. Yes, it is farming and fishing that we're concerned with here, Secretary of State. I mean, I have to tell you, I take no reassurance, none whatsoever in what you say, and if Scotland's devolution settlement can be treated so lightly, and that's how I take much of what you've said, importantly, how can we be sure that our interests in matters like high agriculture and environmental standards will be respected in any future UK trade deals? Well, I think the first thing to say is that I disagree with your initial premise. I can't see how the UK government saying it respects the devolution settlement and it wants to provide additional resource and work for the Scottish Government in order to put the interests of Scotland citizens first is in any way undermining the devolution settlement. It is reinforcing the devolution settlement. What undermines the devolution settlement is an argument for separation and independence for Scotland, which would mean that the powers that the Scottish Parliament currently has to be... You know better than the Scottish Government in devolved matters. No, I... You know better than the Scottish Parliament in devolved matters. No, but I think that... Well, last year, sure. I have repeated to this committee, as I did to earlier committees, that I respect the devolution settlement. One of the concerns that I have is that sometimes there are opportunities that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have to improve things where, while I completely respect the devolution settlement, I'm not sure that all the powers that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have are being used in the right way. Now, that's a matter for the Scottish Government, but I thought it was very interesting, for example, that recently Johnny Hall's from the NFU Scotland pointed out that the Scottish Government has not provided the same degree of clarity and detail and future vision that the UK Government has when it comes to farming and agriculture and the environment in England. Now, that is a decision that the Scottish Government must take about what the approach is, but it believes is right. But, you know, as someone who loves Scotland, wants to see Scotland succeed and wants to see an effective Scottish Government, again, when voices like that of Johnny's from the NFU Scotland are raised, I listen with interest, but I absolutely respect the devolution settlement. The key question is, let's make it work. And one of the ways in which we can make it work is by no longer having a divisive debate about separation, independence, another referendum and a separate currency, but instead using the powers that the Scottish Parliament has. If there is nothing more divisive than Brexit, nothing more divisive. I don't want this to become a political discussion. I'd like to try and get back to the questions wherever we were, so I'm going to ask Mike to ask his question on this before moving on to Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Mr Gove. I just want to follow up your response to a previous question from Maureen Watt about a no-deal Brexit and the implications of that for Scotland's agricultural industry. I know your position. You want all your colleagues to vote for a deal to get this through, but assuming that that doesn't happen and the alternative is a no-deal Brexit, I think you've accepted already that. I'm not sure to put it on to put words on your mouth, but in my view, certainly a no-deal Brexit would be devastating for Scotland's agricultural industry with the tariffs that we've already mentioned, for instance, with the sheep sector. Are you doing all you can as the minister responsible for the UK's agricultural industry in the UK cabinet to argue whatever happens? I know what your preference is, but whatever happens, we don't leave with a no-deal and have the subsequent devastation of our agricultural industry. In my view, I would hope that it would be your position. Could you confirm whether that it is? Thank you for your question. One of the things is that even though we come from different parties, we find ourselves agreeing on a lot, and I do agree with you. I'm not quite the language. I can understand why you use it. I do think that if we left without a deal, that there would be real risks and challenges for the whole of the UK economy and in particular for agriculture and farming, and in particular, as Maureen and you have pointed out, for some of the more vulnerable sectors like upland farmers and the sheep sector. Now, I think that we can, the UK government and the Scottish government can put in place measures and we have put in place measures to mitigate the impact of that, but that one of the reasons why I am strongly advocating a deal is that I do recognise that while the UK could get through the initial turbulence that no deal would cause, none of us would want that turbulence because of the impact that it would have on the people that you represent. But the point I'm making is, with your particular responsibilities, do you not feel obliged to fight the corner in the cabinet to prevent whatever else happens and no deal breaks it? I have again made the case and will make the case on any platform that I've given that the best answer is a deal. When I spoke to the NFU conference in February in Birmingham, I made the point then that there were real challenges with no deal during the course of parliamentary debate in the UK Parliament when the Prime Minister was indisposed for health reasons and I stood in for her. I also explained there some of the difficult consequences that no deal would bring about and I and my colleague and our mutual friend David Mandell makes the same arguments. One thing though that I have to acknowledge is that it is one of a number of possible scenarios for which we have to be prepared and while it is very far from being the scenario that I would prefer, it's my responsibility to make sure that we are ready for whatever is the outcome of this process. The next question is from Jamie Greene, Jamie. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Mr Gove. I'd like to expand further on the subject that we touched on earlier around access to the labour markets. I think that it's quite an important area for agriculture. Notwithstanding the issues around the fishing industry, I wonder if we could talk a little bit about the soft fruits industry and other forms of seasonal workers and farming. I appreciate that matters of immigration policy are a matter for your colleague in the Home Office. However, I suspect that you have a strong interest in this matter. Could you give the committee an update on how the industry is responding to the pilot scheme for migrant workers? I think that we could probably approach this in two ways. One is to ensure access of labour from within the EU, but also from outside the EU as well, which will not necessarily be impacted by Brexit in the same way. That would be a very helpful to get an update on that. There's been an enthusiastic take-up of places on our seasonal agricultural workers pilot and we've been recruiting, as you quite rightly point out, from just beyond the EU, from places like the Ukraine and Moldova. The pilot at the moment is smaller than some would have wanted, but I think the enthusiastic take-up helps us to make the case for the potential expansion of numbers that come in through the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. One of the arguments that's made is that while the seasonal agricultural workers pilot from outside the EU is a good thing, it's still the case that we remain in the EU and if the withdrawal agreement bill is passed, it will still be the case that during the transition period even though we're out of the EU, free movement will still continue for a period and that means that workers from Romania, Bulgaria and elsewhere can still come and work in the UK. Of course, as countries like Romania and Bulgaria themselves become wealthier, so more of the individuals in those countries who've worked in the UK might want to work in their own home countries and as the value of sterling in the immediate aftermath of the referendum fell a wee bit so that meant that some of the earnings, even though it was obviously a help to exporters, some of the earnings of some of those workers in relative terms diminished and that also had an impact. So we need to keep all these things in balance but I do think that we need to have an open approach and I also think that the soft fruit sector, which is so important in Angus and Perthshire, does need to make sure that it has access to all the labour it needs. Thank you for that detailed response and I think it's fair to say that the needs of soft fruit growers in Angus is perhaps not dissimilar to those in Ashford so I think there's a UK wide issue to look at. I mean just that you touched on the numbers there and I think it's fair to say that what industry are saying to us is that they're looking for regions in the tens of thousands in terms of the number of seeds in the workers that they need to pick the fruit that's required. Do you think there's scope for expansion of the pilot scheme and also there have been one or two anecdotal pieces of evidence that there may have been some delays in processing the visas for some and I'm hoping that's maybe something you can take up with the Home Office to ensure that there's timely processing of those visas to make sure we get people on the ground doing the job they need to do as soon as possible. I certainly will and thank you for bringing it to my attention and yes I'm open minded about how the scheme might develop in the future and one of the reasons that we were able to get the scheme in place so quickly was because of the advocacy of Christine Hare who did a brilliant job in making sure that the Home Office appreciated the vital importance of having a pilot scheme and in conversation with Christine I'm hoping to see you Hare and visit Angus later this week we will keep under review the evidence on the ground about what may be required in the future. And finally if I may I can I add my commendation to the work of my colleague Christine and indeed any MP from across the UK who's working on behalf of their constituents in the subject can I also maybe probe your thoughts on how we could grow a local workforce for this type of work I appreciate that we have been traditionally relying on people from the parts of the EU which you mentioned that has changed its course and we're now looking beyond the borders of Europe for seasoned workers but do you think there's a role that the both of Scotland's governments could play in trying to encourage people who already live and work here indeed to take this up as a potential career path or to look at it as an employment opportunity and what do you think we could do to help grow that workforce? I think you're absolutely right I think that we need to consider how we make agriculture overall an even more attractive profession and one of the things that I want to do is to work with Scotland's rural college and others in order to make sure that attractive career paths are open to people who want to work on the land and want to work in agriculture. I also think that it's the case that if we look at organisations like the James Hutton Institute some of the work that they're doing is scientifically exciting but also holds open the prospect of growers being able to produce soft fruit salad vegetables and other fresh produce in exciting new ways and as technology advances so the opportunity for enterprising and innovative Scots to make a career in agriculture and in growing increases so I think it's important that both governments work together in order to support those at the cutting edge of innovation and also to take account of the specific concerns of those people who are already making a success of producing some of the highest quality produce in the world. We're going to move on to the next question to Stuart Stevenson. I'm just conscious of trying to get all committee members in so short questions, short answers are always good I say but I leave it to committee members as Stuart. Thank you very much. I'm going to ask a narrow point other colleagues will ask about international trade and about geographical indicators after I've asked my question. I'm just simply looking at the United States trade report, the negotiating position for a trade deal. In particular they want to bring whiskey in that hasn't been held in bond in three years. We do that under the 1915 Immature Spirits Act that my father's cousin was responsible for and asked with government. Issues about food hygiene and the use of hormones and I think a lot of that is in our environment down to public health concerns and we know that the United States is 27th in perinatal debts, leading in opioid addiction, obesity, huge problems so they are not a leader in that. Will we very strongly resist in any negotiations the imposition of the kind of ideas the United States is putting and make sure that the jurisdictions across the UK are involved in setting the terms of any debate on this subject? I think it's fair to say that the United States initial ask in these trade negotiations is probably more designed to appeal to aspects of the domestic audience in America than it is to work for us. That's fine. Jamie, you have a question there as well. Thank you, it's me again. It's interesting, I also sit on the European Committee and the Parliament and we've been doing a lot of work on this in terms of the role of the devolved administrations and future negotiations and future trade deals both bilateral and otherwise. Given that agriculture and fisheries specifically are very pertinent issues when we are negotiating trade deals with other countries such as New Zealand, the US, etc., what role do you think the devolved administrations should play in terms of the process of sitting around the table before the negotiations begin and talking about the needs and wants of the various constituent parts of the UK and to ensure that those are all reflected as a negotiation position when you go into that conversation with the other side? I think it's critical and I think your approach is absolutely the right one. What we want to do is to make sure that the negotiating mandate that we have in those trade negotiations is as widely understood as possible that we involve people from across the United Kingdom and that we take advantage of the expertise and commitment of the devolved administrations. During those negotiations it has to be the UK Government because it's an international treaty at the end of it that is in the room but I think it is absolutely critical that we make sure that any trade agreement works for all parts of the United Kingdom. Thank you for that and I appreciate that environments such as the GMCs which are designed to facilitate those conversations. Do you think there are any other practical measures that the Governments could participate in to perhaps get over any disagreement in strategy or any formalised process in which the various needs of each of the Governments have? I think that the Welsh Government may have a view on a certain strategy, the Scottish Government and others and indeed yourselves in a different direction. How do you square that circle before you go into that room to ensure that there's a strong single unified voice negotiating? We do everything we can in order to make sure that every sector that has particular interests is effectively represented. So recently, representatives of Plaid Cymru raised a particular impact of our relationship with South Korea in trade terms for our qualax exports and it's critically important for parts of Wales that we maintain good access and we are determined to take account of that. With respect to Scotland, two of the UK's most important exports are salmon and whisky and we want to make sure that the high standards that we maintain are in no way undermined and of course I am happy to meet with representatives not just of the Scottish Government who have a critical role to play but also other members of the Scottish Parliament and representatives of individual sectors. So for example, I go to the Royal Highland show at Ingolston, it's an opportunity for me to hear direct from people in agriculture and agriculture about what their particular concerns might be about future trade arrangements but also their hopes and to incorporate that into the UK Government's approach. Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing you at the show. Thank you. The next question will be from Colin Smyth. Can I turn to the issue of geographical indications and access to markets, Mr Gove? GIs are obviously clearly important to products such as Scotch whisky, as you mentioned. Can you tell us how the UK's GIs will be treated on the EU market in the event of a no-deal Brexit at the end of October? It will be the case that under EU law they will continue, that is the EU, to respect our geographical indications. In terms of going forward and negotiating any trade deals, would continued protection of UK GIs in the EU market be a red line for negotiations with the EU and would continued protection be a red line in negotiations with the United States on any trade deal? We are absolutely committed to making sure that the benefits of geographical indications are continued to be available to producers across the United Kingdom. Just a final point. Do you think that a no-deal Brexit or a deal that includes a permanent customs union would be the best for Scottish produce such as Scotch whisky? One of the interesting things about whisky is that it does not have tariff barriers, but one of the things that I would say is that the best deal that I suppose you would expect me to say this is the one that the Prime Minister has negotiated, which manages to ensure that we have tariff and quota-free access for goods and for agri foods, while at the same time having an independent trade policy when it comes to services. I do, just a quick question. I would also like to commend my colleagues Deirdre Brock and Emma Harper for all their hard work that they have done on the PGI status. Mr Gove, the UK Government stated that in the event of a no-deal, existing holders of protected status should prepare to reapply to the EU for protection and use of the EU logo. Is this still the case? If so, will it involve a cost and if so, who is going to pay for that? The UK Government stands ready to make sure that all additional unnecessary costs, which business bears, we take into account. Sorry, what is the difference between an unnecessary and a necessary cost? Again, we will look pragmatically at each of the individual challenges that business has to bear. Of course, one of the things that I mentioned earlier is that we are seeking to do everything we can to avoid a no-deal exit, but we are also capable of making sure that the impacts of a no-deal exit in particular sectors and for particular producers are mitigated. Just really quickly, picking up the bill for the health certificate gets in the fish sector, giving compensation for the sheep sector and now money for protected status. Do we have a final cost for all this? Well, one of the things, of course, is that if we leave the European Union, we will no longer be paying in to the European Union, so we will benefit net to equal at least £10 billion a year. Okay, I'm going to move on to the next question, which is Sean Mason. My question is around the question of the border and how well prepared we are for an exit. I think that there was a report from the National Audit Office, which was on October 18, and I realised that that was when they were expecting that March 19 would be the exit date, so things may have changed. It says that things like DEFRA has done well in very difficult circumstances. What really matters now, though, is that DEFRA accelerates its medium-term planning for the withdrawal agreement while finalising its contingency plans. Can you give us any update as to where we are with borders and border controls and so on? Yes, the National Audit Office report, and thank you very much for your very fair summary of it, thanked DEFRA officials for their hard work, but acknowledged that there was much more to do. That report was very helpful in marking our homework and telling us where we had to try harder and we have, and we were ready if it had been the case that we had left in March of 2019. We had the IT systems and the other organisational preparations in place. Of course it would have been the case that there would have been, as I mentioned earlier, some turbulence and some bumps in the road, and if indeed we do leave on October 31 without a deal, there will be some turbulence and some bumps in the road. However, we are confident that DEFRA, along with other Government departments, has taken appropriate steps to mitigate those risks. One of the things that they specifically said was that some of the controls at the border would be less than optimal, which would send up at least some amber lights, if not red ones. Is the suggestion that, because we have been in the EU that we would carry on in a more relaxed way after we leave, things would gradually tighten up? If that is the case, are we expecting the EU countries to be equally relaxed in our exports to them? That is a very big question and an important one. Our approach, the UK Government's approach, is continuity wherever possible. So we do not expect the day after a no-deal exit, if it were to occur, that suddenly France, Germany or Austria would lower their animal welfare or environmental standards when exporting to the UK. So we can have confidence that we could continue to allow exports from EU countries into this country without the need for the same level of checks that we might apply to non-EU countries. The EU has said that in the event of a no-deal exit they would insist on not just the common external tariff being applied to the UK, but also a battery of SPS and other checks. That would mean that UK exports, for example, would have to go through a border inspection post. It is within the EU's power to apply those rules with a greater or lesser degree of flexibility. That is one of the known unknowns, as someone once said, about a no-deal exit. To what extent would it be the case that, for example, the French Government would prioritise speed of flow over the most, what's the word, comprehensive checking possible? There were lots of signals from people within the French Government that they would prioritise speed of flow, but we had to take into account the fact that not everything might necessarily be in place to guarantee that. Presumably the fear for our farmers is that we allow French and other food to come into our country, and it probably is of a perfectly good standard, but it can compete here with Scottish and other UK products, whereas if our products are delayed at the border, some of which would not survive more than a few days and they are held up, then they would not be able to compete within the European countries. That is a concern, but it is, I'd say, two things. The first thing is that, in terms of fair competition, we published a schedule, an indicative schedule, of the tariffs that we would apply in the event of a no-deal exit in order to make sure that we had appropriate protection for UK agriculture, while also at the same time balancing the need for price stability for the consumer, and it is also the case that there would be an interest for, for example, French consumers making sure that the shellfish that they enjoy and which is provided in abundance from Scotland and from Google gets on to French plates and into French restaurants as quickly as possible, so they'd be a strong commercial incentive from people across Europe to ensure the unimpeded supply of produce that they could not themselves quickly replicate from any other source. Thank you. And the last question will be from Peter Chapman, Peter. Thank you, convener. Mr Gove, in the event of a no-deal exit scenario, you recently published a tariff schedule, which in my opinion meant there was a great lack of fairness. In the tariffs and our exports of food to the EU are in general much higher than tariffs you are proposing to live on imports. Now, this would have a catastrophic effect on our agricultural farming industry. Surely there should be parity of tariffs for exporting and importing for that to be a fair system. So my question is, will you reconsider that approach to tariffs? The approach to tariffs, as I mentioned to John, was designed to do two things, to protect the most vulnerable sectors in agriculture and at the same time to safeguard prices for consumers. So it's some of the most vulnerable sectors that we discussed earlier, the particular vulnerability of the sheep meat sector, would have exactly the same protection outside the EU as they do inside the EU. It's also the case that other red meat sectors like beef would also enjoy appropriate protection. But we also believe that it was right to have an approach overall towards tariffs that was led to a great degree of liberalisation. But if you look at the agriculture sector and compare it with other sectors of our economy, our approach in a no deal scenario would be to protect agriculture much more energetically and vigorously than any other sector for the reasons that we're both well known. Can I just come back? I mean, to be honest, I don't accept that because, you know, the levels of protection for sheep meat are similar. But for everything else, basically everything else, the tariff rates for imports are much less than the tariff rates for our farmers export. And so how can that be fair? It certainly would help to keep food prices down, but it certainly would do nothing to allow us to have an agriculture industry that would have any kind of secure future going forward. There are other ways in which we can support the agriculture sector as well. There are ways in which we can make sure that farmers in some of the more exposed sectors are helped through those initial challenges and ways in which we can make sure that we're investing in improved agricultural productivity overall. But I think one of the things, Peter, that both of you and I agree is that what we must do by Brexit, that's what folk across the United Kingdom voted for, and no deal Brexit would pose particular challenges. And in that context, one of the things that we need to do is to work together across the United Kingdom if that is the outcome of this Brexit process in order to make sure that farmers and food producers across the UK are protected. One of the best ways we can do that is by making sure that the shared muscle of all the countries of the United Kingdom working together helps us through whatever challenges we face. Okay. Unfortunately, we've come to the end of our time, so I'd like to thank Mr Gove for all the evidence that you've given to the committee. We are now going to suspend the meeting to allow the Cabinet Secretary and his officials to arrive for the next item. Therefore, I suspend the meeting for no more than five minutes. I'd now like to reconvene this meeting of the rural economy and connectivity committee. We are now on to agenda item five. I would like to welcome—sorry, I should say before we're doing this—this is our second stage two consideration session of the South Scotland Enterprise Bill. I'd like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary and his supporting officials. Welcome to this meeting. I'd also like to welcome Karen Jackson, the south of Scotland economic development team leader, Sandra Reid, the bill team leader, Felicity Cullen, the Scottish Government legal director, and Fraser Goff, the parliamentary council for the Scottish Government. I'd also like to welcome Finlay Carson to this meeting. We are going to start off from where we'd left off, so I'm going to do that by calling amendment 42 in the name of John Mason in a group on its own, John Mason, to move and speak to amendment 42. John. Thank you very much, convener. As members will see in section 14, head of annual report, it says that the south of Scotland enterprise must, after each financial year, prepare and publish a report on its activities during the year and send a copy of the report to Scottish ministers. My amendment would add that that report must also be laid before this Parliament. Saying that the report must be laid before Parliament will ensure that members are informed regularly about the agency's activities and that the agency is accountable for its actions, therefore allows members to build up a picture of activity over a period of time. I think that this is standard practice for most non-departmental public bodies and brings the new agency's reporting requirements into line with those of the existing enterprise agencies. So I think that this is a step just to increase transparency and I hope that members would support this amendment. Thank you. Peter, you wanted to speak on that. Thanks, convener. I think that amendment 42 increases, online increases accountability of the board. That is something that we would expect to see from any public service body and we appreciate adding it to the face of the bell as a correct thing to do, so I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you. No-one else wants to speak. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to add anything? Yes, thank you, convener. I am pleased to support amendment 42, which will bring the new enterprise agency's reporting requirements into line with those of the existing enterprise agencies. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I now ask John Mason to wind up and press or withdraw the amendment. Be pressed. Okay, thank you. Therefore, the question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question now is that section 14 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I now would like to call amendment 43 in the name of Colin Smith group with amendment 44 to move amendment 43 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 43, in my name, gives ministers a duty to settle a framework to ensure that the new agency interacts effectively with the many other existing bodies covering the south of Scotland. Members know that one of the big concerns raised with the committee by stakeholders in the south of Scotland was the question of how the agency will interact with other bodies working in the region. It is an issue that dominates the views of many businesses and organisations that I speak to regularly in the south of Scotland, and that is presumably why members agreed to recommend in our stage 1 report an amendment to that effect to be brought forward. The new agency will operate alongside councils, Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Funding Council, Visit Scotland, whatever governance is put in place regarding the borderlands growth deal and so on. In practical terms, we need to ensure that there is no duplication or gaps in the work being done and ensure that there is clarity on who is responsible for what. More broadly, we need to ensure that there is collaboration and coherence across the bodies, and I think that the new agency has an absolutely crucial leadership and co-ordinating role to play in this regard. The existing duty to settle in the Community Empowerment Act requires co-operation, but that is at local authority level. It is important to point out that the new agency is cross local authority and community planning partnerships are not sufficient to cover the need to co-ordinate the work. I am happy to move my amendment 43 and amendment 44, which is a consequential amendment. I am one of two constituency MSPs who cross the HIE and Scottish Enterprise boundary, so I see the two. In particular, I see how they work together. In particular, they do not work together because there is something on the face of a piece of legislation, as far as I am aware, but by concordats and formal agreements. I suspect that that may be a better way. However, more specifically looking at the way in which Colin Smyth has constructed his amendment, I wonder if the phrase that operates in the south of Scotland is a bit restrictive, because I think that there are public authorities whose effects are in the south of Scotland but do not necessarily fulfil the test of operating in the south of Scotland. I think that there is a wee issue and Colin may be able to address that in his concluding remarks. That further is qualified by and which functions relevant to the aims of the south of Scotland enterprise. I suspect that that is, again, more restrictive than it would be likely to be the case to the agreement that I would expect would be reached by the new body and whatever bodies it is relevant for them to have agreements with and co-operate. I am going to listen to the debate, but that places me in a position where I am not sure that I should support this at this stage. Interesting amendment. I thank Colin Smyth for bringing this forward. He raises an important issue in the premise behind this amendment. It is something that the committee discussed and indeed reflected on in stage 1. I think that one of the conundrum that we face is how the new agency will work with other bodies and agencies. We had a very lengthy discussion last week about the aims of the agency and the areas of portfolio interests that it will reflect on. We looked at transport, additional connectivity and so on. I think that on the face of it I have support the principle of what Mr Smith is trying to achieve. However, I have some questions from him that perhaps he can reflect on and is summing up. Subject to his response, I think, may influence certainly how I or indeed some of my colleagues might vote on this. Can Colin Smyth provide comfort to me that this amendment does not place any additional duties on the new agency to deliver the functions of any other agency that operates in the south of Scotland? Or indeed, as it stated, something that Mr Stevenson said, which has functions relevant to the aims of the agency, I appreciate the final aims yet to be agreed after stage 3. I am looking for some comfort that that is not placing in additional duty to deliver things that other agencies should be delivering. I also ask him to clarify what co-operates and co-ordinate activities with. I think that it is a valid statement, but it still is, in itself, a vague statement. How do you define what co-operation and co-ordination is? And indeed, how do you then define what the consequences of not co-operating and co-ordinating is? I am slightly worried that either the board of the agency, the agency or indeed the ministers themselves, will face some recourse if it is deemed that they have not been co-operated in co-ordinating the work of other agencies' work, which is largely outside of their control. Finally, I would say that, if the member would be willing to work with other members of the committee to perhaps tighten the wording, if we feel that this does not quite express, in technical levels, the premise of what he is trying to achieve, would he work with us to ensure that, at stage 3, this is a wathatai amendment? In response to that, we would receive our support. John Mason. I will build on what Jamie Greene said. I share some of his concerns about the two words co-operates and co-ordinates. My understanding of co-operates is that, if there are three of us together and we are co-operating, we are all equal and we are working together to find a solution. My understanding of the word co-ordinate is that, if there are three of us together, the person who is co-ordinating is trying to take a lead. Mr Smith used the word leadership, which suggests that the South of Scotland enterprise body is somehow over the local authorities. That might not be his intention, but that is the way that I am reading that, and that would suggest to me that the local authorities autonomy would be undermined. Thank you, John. The duty is to ensure that the South of Scotland enterprise co-operates and co-ordinates activities of the Scottish public authorities are clear. That is the whole point. I am relaxed about that, but I have to say, do we really need the Scottish Government to set out regulations to do it? It seems a bit of an overkill to me. I share some of the concerns, and I do not doubt that it is entirely well-meaning. I have two particular public bodies and public authorities in that area. I cannot think of an example at this particular juncture, but if the two local authorities took diametrically opposed positions in relation to an issue, where does the co-ordination and co-operation come around that, and what additional pressures might be placed on the new agency? The last person to indicate that I want to speak is Finlay Carson. I share the concerns of a lot of the committee members, but it is an important amendment to bring forward with some changes. We want to ensure that money allocated to the board is not used in areas in which other public bodies have the funding to deliver that, whether that is funding Scotland or skills development Scotland or Visit Scotland or whatever. We want to ensure that there is some accountability, that there is co-operation to ensure that the money is coming out of the right pot. There were some concerns surrounding the £6.6 million that was allocated to the colleges in Dumfries and Galloway in the south of Scotland, where, as this was going to be greatly welcomed, the funding—there was an argument that some of that funding should possibly have come from funding Scotland. I think that that will enable us to hold board members to account to ensure that the money is being allocated from the right pot of money. Thank you, Mr Carson. Cabinet Secretary? Thank you, convener. I have listened with great interest to the discussion. First, I do agree with the principle, and Mr Smith is to be commended for bringing this forward. The principle is essential that a south of Scotland enterprise works closely with other public bodies across the south of Scotland. I would go further. I would suggest that it is equally important that the agency engages with businesses, education institutions, communities and public bodies. As has been pointed out by Mr Stevenson, he may not be operating in the south of Scotland, but his influence and his decisions have an impact. I would also co-opt us into the fact that Claudia Beamish moved a similar amendment about a duty to co-operate with environmental bodies. I say the same thing. Of course, there needs to be co-operation with all relevant stakeholders. I agree that the principle is correct. I think that every member has agreed with that. The question really is how, in practice, that objective is best secured. I think that whether, in particular, primary legislation is the best way to achieve that, the amendment has drafted a convener that says that Scottish ministers must make regulations. That would confer powers on Scottish ministers, which we do not seek. We prefer it to leave it to the judgment of the people who are appointed following due processes, the chair and the elected members and their staff to work in the way that we all wish. I do not wish a prescriptive approach from the Scottish ministers to have that power. I do not really see why it would be necessary or desirable, but we do absolutely, Mr Smith, want to encourage the culture of co-operation. We have seen that culture exist in SOCEP, in the partnership under Professor Greig's chairmanship. Indeed, from what I have seen and I have had a privileged position of being involved in many of the meetings and discussions, that partnership is working extremely well. Of course, we have no idea who the office bearers will be, but that culture will carry on, the culture of co-operation. SOCEP has brought together public sector organisations between the private third and education sector and forged good working relations. I think that it is right to record that. I think that Professor Greig's is about to engage in another 32 public meetings across the area, which is a quite outstanding stint. Those of us who have been involved in public meetings know that that is a bit of a shift, putting it in non-ministerial parlance. I am sure, convener, that those relationships will continue with the establishment of the enterprise agency, and rightly so. There are, and I want to try to be helpful here, because I think that there is a mood to try to find a way through that is positive. Mr Greene expressed that as the others, Mr Finnie. First of all, I think that I should have discussions with the local authorities to see what they want in relation to this and have an opportunity to do so prior to stage 3. I think that that would be useful. Mr Finnie has postulated what happens if there is a disagreement between the local authorities and how would this duty impact on that? That is a very fair point to make. Secondly, I can give an absolute assurance that ministerial letters of guidance are used here as an extra statutory mechanism. I have given a commitment to the committee to write before stage 3 in detail about what the initial letter of guidance to the new body should contain. I want today, in response to this, to say that I guarantee that my intention would be that, if the bill is passed by Parliament and we get to the stage of the initial letter of guidance, that would cover the issues of the duty to co-operate with all relevant parties. That would be in the letter of guidance. I think that that would seem to me to be the correct procedural way to achieve an objective that we all share. Secondly, the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board focuses strongly on alignment. Of course, the chair of the new agency will be a member of that board, so part of the purpose of setting up that body is to achieve exactly what this amendment seeks to achieve. Thirdly, our commitment to establishing regional economic partnerships across Scotland. I believe that Mr Smith was the former chair of the House of Scotland Alliance, and I hope that he would see the value in an increased role for the Alliance, building on the successes and bringing together a wider group of agencies. I have listened with care. I am sympathetic to the aims, but I think that there are better ways to achieve it. I hope that members will believe that what I have expressed today is a clear proof that the overall objective will be achieved with letters of guidance. I do not think that legislation is the best way forward here. I am happy to explore that further before stage 3, as we have done before stage 2, and I am happy to give that additional assurance to members today. In conclusion, convener, I hope that, in the light of those assurances and guarantees, and indeed the very interesting and everyone relevant and your main point that has been made in the debate, I hope that Mr Smith will not press his amendment today. The standard point is that I do believe that there is something required within the legislation to achieve that. The cabinet secretary used the interesting phrase that he hopes that the current co-ordination that is taking place with SOSET will continue well. Hope is something that we have all got, but there are no guarantees when it comes to hope, but there is a guarantee that, if it is a legal requirement, it has to continue. The minister mentioned, for example, that in the initial letter of guidance co-ordination will be a key part of that. Letters of guidance change on a regular basis. Cabinet secretary's change, Government's change in a letter of guidance, in my view, is not enough, because, prior to SOSET, we did have a lack of co-ordination, a lack of working together and a lack of delivery among a lot of public bodies in Scotland. Had we not had that lack of delivery, there would have been no requirement for the bill in the first place. I do believe that there is a need for a legal underpinning. I do not think that there is anything in the wording that is used to the phrase operators in the south of Scotland that would, in any way, restrict any organisation that has any work taking place in the south of Scotland. Within the aims of the agency, it is important to stress not being involved in those discussions, and I cannot think of a single example in which that is the case. Mike Rumble's asses are existing duties not enough, while the reality is that we have seen from the evidence that stakeholders believe that what has worked in the past, what has happened in the past, has not been enough. There has not been that sufficient co-ordination among organisations. There have been huge gaps in what has been delivered in the south of Scotland. I make the point again that, had those gaps not existed, had there not been a lack of co-ordination or a lack of working together in the past, we would not have needed the bill in the first place. I think that this amendment will underpin that legally. The cabinet secretary made reference to discussions with local authorities. I think that it is important to point out that in the local authorities evidence, they were the ones that called for that. In fact, Elaine Murray specifically gave an example about how that could work, which is in the form of a memorandum of understanding to avoid, first of all, duplication, but also to make sure that there are no gaps. That is something that has very much come from the local authorities in the first place. However, I hear that members have a concern about a specific wording on that. My personal view is that the best way to deal with that is to place this at stage 2 on to the bill. I am more than happy to work with other members if we are required to tweak the language in that amendment as we go towards stage 3. I am certainly open to changes to the exact wording as we go towards stage 3, but I think that the best way to achieve that is to place this in the bill and then, if it requires, tweak it as we go forward to look at how we can achieve that. It is very important to say that this was not only bringing forward an amendment to the bill, but it was a recommendation of the committee in our stage 1 report, which is an important point to make. Crucially, it is something that stakeholders have called for. I have finished up there, but I can take a point. I appreciate that we are at the end of the debate, but I do have a concern that, in light of the balance of opinion in the committee, if we pursue the amendment and it were not to pass, would it be quite difficult to bring the concept back at stage 3, given precedent and the nature of things? I think that there is an important point to be made in the bill in some form or shape. My worry is that, if the wording is currently drafted, if it does not pass in a minute or two, it would make it more difficult to beef up the premise of what you are trying to achieve, which is one of my concerns. The concern is that, if it does not pass, it would be very difficult to put this amendment in at stage 3, given the fact that some members seem to be implying that there is no requirement for anything at all within the legislation. I have to say that that is a real concern, because, as I said earlier, ministerial direction letters are simply hoping that things will continue the way in which soseps are currently continuing. In my view, it is not enough that we need to see something within the legislation to achieve that. I am going to ask you to either press or withdraw your amendment, please. I think that I will press, I mean that it can be now. Okay, so the question therefore we are raised at this stage is amendment 43 agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed, therefore we will move to a division. Those in favour, please raise their hands. As this is the first, sorry, as this is the first vote, could I just remind members keep your hands up until the clerks have managed to record and keep them up as high as possible. So those in favour, sorry, please raise their hands. Those against? Okay, the result of that vote, there are four votes for the amendment, I'll get that out in a minute. There are four votes for the amendment, seven votes against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. I now call amendment 12 in the name of the cabinet secretary, group with amendment 13. Cabinet secretary, please can you move amendment 12 and speak to both amendments in the group. Sorry, I'm having trouble with amendments this morning. Cabinet secretary. Thank you, convener. The amendments in this group would require the Scottish ministers to consult south of Scotland Enterprise before issuing any directions to it, and would also require them to publish the reasons behind any directions they issue. I should say that both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and this committee called for these requirements to be put on the face of the bill in its stage 1 report. I'm happy to accept those recommendations and to give effect to them by those amendments, which I hope do just that, so they do just that, it's not just a hope. So I move amendment 12. Thank you. There are no members who wish to speak. Cabinet secretary, can I ask you to wind up if you want to? As you move the amendment, the question therefore is amendment 12 be agreed, are we agreed? We are agreed, therefore I call amendment 13 in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 12. Cabinet secretary, can you formally move it please? Formally moved. The question therefore is amendment 13 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed, therefore the question is section 15 be agreed, are we all agreed? The question is that sections 16 to 19 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed, therefore call amendment 44 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 43. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not move, convener. Thank you. Therefore I'll call amendment 45 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smyth to move or not move? Not move, convener. Thank you. Therefore call amendment 46 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 29. Colin Smyth to move, or not move? Not move can be done. Thank you. The question is that section 20 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that sections 21 and 22 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. The question is that the long title be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Okay, that ends stage 2 consideration of the South of Scotland Enterprise Bill. The bill will now be reprinted as amended at stage 2. The Parliament has not yet decided when stage 3 will be held. Members will be informed of that in due course along with the deadline for lodging stage 3 amendments. In the meantime, stage 3 amendments can be lodged with the clerks in the legislative team. And I think, I just really fools to me to thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for coming back to the meeting today and also to thank the members of this committee for what has turned out to be a marathon for an a quarter hour session to get through the work that we had to do this morning. So thank you cabinet secretary and thank you committee and I look forward to hopefully a shorter meeting next week and therefore a closer meeting.