 Ieith anys and welcome to the committee's 13th meeting in 2019. Can I ask everyone present present please to ensure that your mobile phones are on silent mode? We have apologies from Colin Smyth and Rudi Grant is attending as a substitute member. For the record, you have been on the committee before. Could you declare any interest at this stage before we go any further? I donít think that I have any interest in the committee, but I am a member of UNISON ond the co-op party. The first agenda item is an agriculture and fisheries update. This is an opportunity for the committee to receive updates from the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and Scottish government officials on a range of matters relating to agriculture and fisheries management. Before I welcome the cabinet secretary and his team, I would just like to ask members of the committee if there are any declarations of interest that they have in relation to the subject. I would like to open it to say that I am a member of a farming partnership. I likewise say that I am also a member of a farming partnership. I have a very small registered agricultural holding. Therefore I would like to formally welcome Fergus Ewing, the cabinet secretary for the rural economy. I would like to welcome Alan Gibb, the acting deputy director of sea fisheries. I would like to welcome Mike Palmer, the deputy director of agriculture, crane estate, recreational fisheries, EMFF and Europe. I would like to welcome Andrew Watson, the deputy director for agricultural policy implementation. David Barnes, the national adviser on agricultural policy and John Kerr, the head of agricultural policy division for the Scottish Government. Cabinet secretary, would you like to make an opening statement of no more than three minutes, please? Yes, good morning, convener and members. By mid-March this year, it looked like the UK would crash out of the UK without a deal on 29 March. As late as the 10th of April, the UK could have crashed out two days later. The UK Government has now secured a longer extension, but this has only delayed the risks. The problems have therefore not been solved but deferred. The impasse at Westminster remains. The Scottish Government believes that the way to break it is by a people's vote, but the UK Government continues to resist that. The Prime Minister still hopes to deliver her deal, a deal that we cannot support given the grave impacts it could have on Scotland, but no deal remains a very real risk. Exit day could be before the European Parliament elections, or at the beginning of June, or at the end of October, or at any other date before or after. You could hardly make things less certain if you tried. The risks of a no-deal exit have not, convener, gone away. Our exports could be blocked due to tariff or non-tariff barriers. Imports could rise thanks to import policies that have been decided unilaterally in London, and that could lead to price collapse in certain sectors. Before the immediate post-exit period, there are other serious risks. The risk that the UK Government will fail to replace all of Scotland's EU funding, the risk that farmers, fish processes, growers, abattoirs and other businesses cannot get the labour that they need, but there are things that the Scottish Government can do. For example, we are working tirelessly to try to minimise the impact of the new export certification that Brexit causes. However, many more things are out with our control as it evolved administration, but we do have the potential to cause huge damage in rural Scotland. For example, customs delays at Dover could irreparably damage the export of live seafood. For example, the UK control over the policy in regard to temporary workers, migrant labour and the permission to stay and to remain. Those things all rest with London and, frankly, they are all a bit of a boorach. Very serious threats to rural Scotland remain linked to both agriculture and fisheries. We have tried our best and worked extremely hard across all officials and all Government directorates, but given the limited co-operation from the UK Government and the uncertainty that surrounds Brexit to prepare ourselves in the sectors for what might come, I hope that members will support the Scottish Government as we work to achieve the least worst outcome from this unprecedented situation. We will move on to the questions, and the first question is from Maureen Mawr. Cabinet Secretary, in your opening remarks, you are quite rightly focused on Brexit. What impact, in practical terms, does the extension to the 31st of October for the UK to leave the EU have on the work of the Scottish Government in relation to both agriculture and fisheries? In one sense, it defers the problems that I alluded to in my opening statement, problems that would have arisen on 29 March or on 12 April. On the other hand, it does not eliminate those problems, it simply defers them to a later date. A later unspecified date is not the 31st of October, it is some time, we think, between now and the 31st of October. Who knows? Maybe the 31st of October, like 29 March, is a deadline that would be extended. I am just stating that there is a range of possibilities, and the trouble that Government officials have in making preparations for all of this is that the more uncertainty but definition, the more difficult it is to make proper preparations for it. As a responsible administration, we had to prepare for the risk of crashing out of a no deal, and that meant that we had made preparations, convener, for an emergency response style operation centre. That would have been staffed by Government officials. The Government officials that would staff this emergency hub, as it were, would have been taken away from their day-to-day duties, which they would be thus unable to attend to. Arrangements were quite properly considered and ready to be put in place for that emergency style hub, but, of course, now that there has been a deferral of the possibility of a no deal, those arrangements have had to be stood down and we can release the staff back to other duties. This is not a theoretical matter. The gentlemen around this table, all senior officials, have had a huge amount of their time that has been devoted to a no deal, and, inevitably, that time is the time that they cannot spend in taking forward the Government's agenda. With respect, I think that the same scenario applies, perhaps in Spades, in a higher suit in Westminster, from all accounts, but it has had a very real effect. The delay does prolong the uncertainty that businesses are operating under. I know from discussions, for example, with meat wholesalers, that they have had to make arrangements to stockpile, to acquire or procure additional chilled storage. That has all added to costs. Stockpiling for 29 March has now been replaced by stockpiling for the 31 October, or some other date, as I have already alluded to. Those, again, are not theoretical matters. Those are all matters that I have heard from businesses have involved real costs. The same applies to supermarkets stocking up, the same applies to meat processors stocking up, all of them making the point that this is money that they have had to incur because of the no deal scenario, and this is money—CAPEX—quite significant sums in some cases that could have been and were intended to have been invested in other things to promote the success of their ventures. Those are just some of the things that come to mind as problems that face us all at the moment, and problems that I hope we all recognise. We do need to challenge, but it is extremely frustrating that we have to do so because of the no deal option not being entirely removed from the table. In terms of six months' extension or delay or whatever, farmers are then going into another cycle, do not know what to plant, what not to plant, whether to acquire more sheep or anything like that. In terms of your discussions with the sectors, both in agriculture and fishing, what have they said to you about the delay? There are very specific concerns. For example, regarding the impact of a no deal on the lamb sector, because one-third of the Scotch lamb is exported to European markets. The UK Government has estimated that the impact of loss of that European market, or subject to a tariff of up to 40 per cent, would cause a fall or collapse in the price of up to 45 per cent—that is the UK's modelling—and the lost revenue with a range, a very substantial figure. I think from memory about £54 million, £73 million, I can come back with the correct figures, but this is a very real risk. I recently met at the guest of Donald Cameron MSP some hill farmers from Lechabur and they are really worried. They are worried at the moment anyway about the future of hill farming, but adding to that the possibility of losing export markets for a third or up to a third of produce is a very serious issue. The UK Government at Arby Hess and the behest of the Welsh Administration and Northern Irish have been modelling for a compensation scheme for sheep farmers. In fact, I took the opportunity of meeting on the day that this Parliament was supposed to reconvene on 11 April. I had fixed up a meeting with stakeholders, which I went ahead with, with the agri stakeholders. We agreed in principle that a headage scheme with compensation payable directly to crofters and farmers would be, well, in the situation, the least worst option. I am now advancing with the help of officials. John Kerr could probably add more about this, pressing the UK Government so that we use the time that we have to prepare the details of what a compensation scheme would look like. The dairy sector is also affected. I will finish with a general point. Because the deal on the table such as it is, if it can be called a deal through an agreement to agree in any respect, that takes us to the end of 2020. The delay to say 31 October is 19, meaning that there is less time available after that clarity is provided. Let's say that it is 31 October, but there is less time available before the end of 2020 to sort out all the matters that have not been agreed in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. That is fine. We might come back to sheet later on. Thank you. We might indeed. Next question is from Peter. I think that you wanted to follow up on that. Cabinet Secretary, welcome. You have spoken about some of the stuff that you have done to prepare the future for the various sectors. One particular question that I have is that the last time that we discussed the future support for agriculture, you said that you were about to set up another new expert panel to try to find a way forward. I wonder if you could update us on how well that is going. When we are going to see who the members of that panel are and when they will likely give us some ideas for their ideas for the future support of agriculture. You are right. The Parliament mandated me to do precisely that. It was on the basis of a text, which Mr Rumble, if I recall, had a hand in adjusting by discussion and consideration together. I was happy to do that. We are working hard on that. It is quite a complex and detailed task, and I do not want to put a time limit on it now with respect. The fact that an enormous amount of time was quite rightly devoted to a no deal, including score meetings every week, including meetings that I chaired by conference call of the food and fish sectors and aquaculture sectors. Something has got to give. We have had to rightly devote the lion's share of our attention, time and effort to that. By definition, other things would not be progressed as quickly as we would like. That is just a statement of fact. However, it is an important piece of work, and I commit to the committee, as I have done in the floor of Parliament, that we are working on this. We have to consult with some relevant organisations in order to do that. We are working hard to try to get the right people. The remit, of course, is to look at a really post-Brexit long-term policy. I would make the point that it is quite difficult to do that at the moment in the complete absence of certainty about what the short and medium term are going to hold. I do not know if David Barnes or John Kerr has anything to add to that. Mike had a follow-up question to bring him in before anyone else comes in. It was that question, Gavin, so I will leave it. Cabinet Secretary, do you want to add briefly to that? Sure, very briefly. Mr Ewing has outlined the main issues. From our perspective, what we have been very conscious of is that, if you are approaching people often to give up their time to participate in this sort of event, you should be very clear about the remit that they have to work to. Because of the short-term uncertainties around no deal and Brexit, it felt appropriate to just take stock of where that took us before we got into those detailed conversations with people. As the cabinet secretary says, we are now moving ahead with the project and will give an update to Parliament as soon as we can. We have focused very much on agriculture so far. I will ask the same question. What are you doing to prepare for the future of the fishing industry? I did fear that we could briefly, Cabinet Secretary, because we are going to come to fisheries in a minute. If you could briefly just put something on the fisheries and then move forward. Members will know that we have recently published a discussion paper about future fisheries policy. Fisheries should be conducted on the basis of being made in Scotland, being on a sustainable fishery basis, so far as we can involve local governance, encourage new entrants, ensure that coastal communities throughout Scotland and our islands and the coasts are able to fish sustainably and benefit from new arrangements. That discussion paper, as a result of a long period of internal work by officials, including Mr Gibb, has been fairly well received. That sets out a clear prospectus as to the future of fisheries policy in Scotland. The second point is that no deal for the prospect of fishery, if it were to occur on 31 October, I would like to make the point that is right at the heart of the thick of the period of the fisheries negotiations, the trilaterals with Norway, Iceland and Farrows. Those are all being brought to a close or in the course of so being brought to a close at that time. The deferral of the date to around 31 October adds a new degree of complexity. Of course, the other thing is that if we are out in a no-deal basis, we will not be at the table in Brussels at the fisheries negotiations in December. That means that we have got no voice or no say in the determination of TACs and quotas. That would mean that we are not at the table, the UK is not at the table, Scotland is not at the table in her own right anyway, but we would not be able to play a part in the UK delegation, as I have sought constructively to do, convener, for the past three months. Those are just two points. There are many other points, but you asked me to brief, so I'll just stop there if I may. I think that we'll move on to the next question, which is from John Finnie John. Good morning. Cabinet Secretary, the committee did a report on crofting and the Scottish Government committed to examining the modernisation of that to make it, quote, more transpirable, understandable and workable. I know that you gave a briefing to the cross-party group in crofting in March 2018, where you outlined some phases. The committee was keen that anything that did come forward be such that it could be completed before the end of the current parliamentary term. On top of that, you also talked about non-legislative means in the 12th of April last year, and that covered the issue of a national development plan for crofting and a new entrance scheme. When will the national development plan be published and other plans to revive the new entrance scheme? I say that because we know that the young families and new entrance start-up schemes are both currently closed, as is the capital grant scheme. Can you give an update on that, please? Okay. There are quite a few things there, and Mr Finnie is correct that I have committed to seeking to introduce the crofting bill before the end of the session, and in sufficient time to complete that before the end of the session, that commitment remains. There was, as members will recall, no clear consensus on a way forward, but we have decided to take a two-phase approach. Phase 1 is focused on delivering changes that resolve known issues that improve transparency and promote simplicity, and phase 2 is continuing with a more fundamental review of crofting legislation. Sorry, just two seconds. I would ask if you could bear in mind that I do sometimes struggle to hear over conversations that are going on. I want to hear the cabinet secretary's words. If we could listen to the cabinet secretary or get a chance to ask your questions, hopefully in the correct order that we agreed that you might like to do it in due course, cabinet secretary. Sorry, I would like to hear your answer. I'll do my very best to make my answers even more scintillatingly interesting. We're taking a two-stage approach. We've committed to legislation. It's close to my heart. I'm passionately committed to doing this. I think that we need to do it. I feel a moral obligation to do it, so please don't get the impression that not any opposition politicians would ever rush to other different conclusions that there's anything fake or insincere about this. We will do this. I will do my damnedest to do it. I say that, you know, stick my neck out a bit because the Brexit is predating upon the legislative timetable convener as well, and the time of this committee is you know better than I. You asked also about two other things, new entrance in a national development plan for crofting. The national development plan will form a critical part of the support for crofters and crofting community. It is an important document. A draft plan has been shared with members of the crofting stakeholder focus group and cross-party group and crofting is due for further consideration of the next stakeholder forum meeting. I think that I did make it clear that that approach of consulting the group and consulting the stakeholders, a big-tent approach, bringing in people to the discussion to try to get a degree of consensus in an area where, when we get to legislation, we've found that that consensus can quite often break down. To try to do that in that way, I think, is important, but we are making progress with that. Mr Finlay is quite right, convener, to raise the new entrance issue. Since 2015, the commission has approved over 850 assignations, 140 lets and 120 divisions. That's the normal bread and butter work of the commission, but it's important to remember that that work does lead to new entrants. A significant number of those figures that I've just quoted are of new entrants. That's a good thing. I'd also point out that the crofting grants scheme for houses and crofts is one that I've again taken a personal interest and tried to maximise the number of people, particularly younger people, who are able to get a home in their own part of Scotland. That, too, is very close to my heart. My officials will correct this if wrong, but since 2017, we've enabled about 800 or 900 families to get crofts in their own parts of Scotland. That's a direct way of helping new entrants. Officials are currently working stakeholders in a pilot new entrance scheme that will be aimed at encouraging older or less active crofters to transfer their croft to a new entrant. That model is one convener that can also be applied towards farming as well of the older farmer, mentoring, helping, assisting, encouraging a new younger entrant to take over or become involved in some way in order to become a new entrant. A lot is going on. I'm afraid that things do, as I've said, take more time than we would all wish, but I'm confident that we are making significant progress in many areas and we tend to build on that over the coming couple of years. John, I'd like to bring in radar just on crofting and then come to John Mason on a more general question. Just very quickly, the problems with the previous crofting bills have been that crofting has evolved differently in different areas. A bill that suits one area doesn't always suit another. I think that what we really need in our crofting bill is time between stage two and stage three to make sure that there are no unintended consequences. So, when you're talking about sufficient time, will there be sufficient time to do that, to make sure that the bill is fit for purpose and we don't fall into the same trap as we have previously? I think that we're a grant, convener, if I may say so. It makes an excellent point, and it's one that I've often thought over the years and 20 years I've been here, that in some cases of some bills, particularly those of complexity or an arcane nature of law, with which perhaps most of us, at least, are not particularly familiar, it would actually be very useful to have a slightly greater period of time between stages two and three. I think that Rhoda Grant has raised at this point now. I'm pleased she's done so. What I will do is drop a note to the Minister for Parliamentary Business just to make that point at this stage, because I think that that would be a useful approach. I'm not in charge of the parliamentary timetable. The bureau deals with that, but I think that's a good point. I would be inclined to recommend that that be given very favourable consideration, and it would do no harm to flag it up with Graeme Dey now, so I will do that as a result of Rhoda's question. If I may say so, I think that that would also help to embed the approach that I'm trying to take the crofting bill, that it shouldn't be a party political partisan bill, it should be, if you like, a Parliament bill so far as possible. I mean, I've got here a note of the examples of phase one proposals, convener. There's three, six, seven issues. I could read them out if you want. I think that what I'd like to do at this stage, cabinet secretary, is bring John Mason in with a general question, which may allow you to bring some of those in, John. Okay. Thanks so much, convener. I mean, I take the point that you've just made, cabinet secretary, that you're not in control of the parliamentary timetable, so anything you say or hope or commit to will be subject to that. You've been asked just now specifically about crofting legislation. I'm just wondering about other legislation, what you see is happening really over the next two years. There's been suggestions, for example, as well as crofting, Good Food Nation perhaps bill, what ensure fisheries perhaps bill, future fisheries, agriculture, some of the areas that there might be legislation on. I'm just wondering if you could give us an indication as to what your current thinking is. I'm not going to hold you. It's not set in stone. Well, thank you for all those caveats designed to protect me from airing. But, I mean, first of all, the Government's legislative programme hasn't been finalised, so any answers I give, I'm afraid, can't be definitive because, you know, there is quite rightly a proper process for that. But I have met the Minister for Parliamentary Business just a couple of weeks ago. I made a case for each of the bills in my portfolio that the Government would like to take forward. For his part, Mr Day made clear that the Government will have to fit in with the amount of parliamentary time available and the potential workload of individual committees, such as this one. I can answer very briefly on each of the topics. Yes, I think that some of my colleagues may want to ask you in more detail later on about safe fishing. Is there an overview at this stage? I think that the overview is that the additional factor—I mean, this is an iteration of the points that I've already made—the additional factor to our workload from what we envisaged in our manifesto and in our programme for government is Brexit. Brexit means that we do believe that we will have to have one or possibly two bills and we anticipate that we may need a fisheries bill as well to deal with Brexit in various ways. No doubt, we can come on to deal with that. However, I think that if it's just an overview that you want at this stage, I'll just make the point that something has to give. If I'm to have, say, two or three Brexit bills before this committee or others, that uses up the available parliamentary time. Unless we're going to start sitting until 10 or midnight, which we've done before of course, then I'm not quite sure how we can squeeze a gallon into a pint pot and something's got to give, putting it absolutely bluntly. That's the predicament that faces it. There's no point in skirting around it. It is as a direct result of Brexit and that's not an excuse, convener. It's really just a response to Mr Mason's point, the statement of where we are. Sorry, cabinet secretary. I think I interrupted you earlier when you were about to give your wish list of bills for the next two years. Perhaps just listing them now would be helpful that the committee would know what they're looking forward to. Well, what was actually in my mind, convener, before you intervened was to say that in relation to the good food legislative consultation that the consultation closed on 18 April, really just a few days ago. Plainly, it would be wrong to prejudice the outcome of the analysis of the responses to that consultation. That's not ducking any questions. It's just a statement of the obvious. We had a consultation, a wide-ranging consultation. We haven't yet had the opportunity to study the responses. That will take some time. It must be done carefully. We will do that carefully. Could that be one that you hoped that— Well, I hope that all bills could be accommodated, but hope is one thing. Reality, I'm afraid, is something that very often clashes with aspiration, but we will see. I'm determined to do my best to take forward all the commitments that we have and to implement them as far as we can. Just running through, we've got the crofting bill. We've mentioned possibly a good food nation legislation, a rural finance bill, possibly an urgent bill for 220 CAP payments, and possibly a fisheries bill. Those are on the list that I've just been provided, and I'll just run through them briefly. No doubt we'll come back to each of them. The first stage of the crofting stuff is definitely still a priority for you. We have a very solid commitment to do this on the crofting bill, and I think that's accepted across the political divide. It would be extremely unfortunate if we were not able to implement that, and I will do everything I can to make sure that that doesn't arise. Jamie, you want to follow up on one of those bills? Yes, thank you, convener. Good morning, gentlemen. Just before I do focus on the one that was of interest to me, you listed a number of bills there that you said used to phraseology. We hope that people will be introduced in the session of Parliament. Are they in any particular order, in the sense of, is it more likely that the Brexit-related or financial-related bills will be presented to Parliament before things like crofting good food, which are more policy-orientated? The legislative programme hasn't been finalised, and there are various time considerations in respect of each bill that we have to take into account. I don't think that I'm in a position at the moment to state the expected order of bills, and we haven't done that work as yet. What I have committed to is that, for example, if legislation is required by a certain date, we will bring it forward by that date. That applies to the rural finance bill that would be required in order not to continue payments under the European funding, SRDP and CAP, but to allow changes to any programmes to be made. Because of all the statutory instruments that you have been dealing with over the past few months have been put in place, that allows the mechanism to continue the payments of the existing schemes as they are. That was the purpose of them. However, the distinction is that, if we then, as we have indicated, we wish to do in our stability and simplicity document, wish to begin to make changes and to simplify things and to streamline things and to pilot, for example, more sustainable methods of farming, just to name one example, then from 2021 onward, I think, we would want to have the legal mechanism and capacity and competence to make changes. That means working back from that, that we have to have this rural finance bill in place by a certain time, and that would be in time in order to allow us to make those changes. If you see what I mean, there are time considerations for every bill of different sorts, but there is a particular time requirement in respect of the Brexit legislation, I think. That is very helpful. Thank you. You are using the phrase in today's session, a rural finance bill. In a previous statement to the Parliament, you used the words a rural support bill, and in other statements you have used the words, we will introduce an agricultural bill. I just want to clarify, are those three the same, or are they different, and what is the difference? I think that I have been using those words as just a shorthand. The actual bill and title, the short title and the long title, obviously have not been finalised yet, that is part of the drafting process. I make the point that the bill will cover financial support under the whole of the CAP, not only farming, but things like leader, things like aches, things like rural parties, and things like forestry. In that respect, to enable us to make changes on all of those myriad of rural support schemes, perhaps a title such as finance rural support would be a better description of what the bill is seeking to do. It would not apply simply only to agriculture, although that is the lion's share of the payments, but we have not finalised the terms of the bill. Cabinet Secretary, just what Jeremy is trying to get to is, is it three bills, or is it two bills, or is it one bill? I do not think that the titles are necessarily the important thing. It was just the number of bills, and that would be very helpful from the committee to understand how many bills it actually is. Okay, well, he did say that there were three names, so I'm just trying to clarify that. I hope I've done that, that we anticipate financial support would be a title that would seem to be descriptive of the purpose of the bill. Turning to the question that you've asked, we certainly believe that we require this bill in order to be able to make changes to the scheme for the reasons that I've described. However, there is one potential technical issue that we're keeping an eye on if the Prime Minister may require another bill, convener, or it is possible, subject to advice, that this could be combined with the rural finance bill. That's under consideration at the moment. The technical issue is that if the PM's deal were to go through in its current form, it says that EU law would continue to apply in the UK until the end of 2020, except the cap direct payments regulation for 2020. I've said before that if the potential issue becomes a real one and if it requires a short piece of technical legislation in the Scottish Parliament to deal with it, we will bring that forward. If that is possible to be combined in the rural finance bill, then, although I can't pre-empt the outcome of the policy development work on that matter, it is possible that that can be done. However, that is very much under consideration at the moment. It's a very technical matter and I'm always mindful of the fact that my officials are at least as well-versed as me in those matters. I don't know if there's anything that David or John wants to add on that. Cabinet Secretary, you've said that the issue in the withdrawal agreement is effectively a technicality. Unfortunately, it's quite a complicated thing. It isn't a Scotland-only issue. It would apply across the entire United Kingdom. Of course, as on many other things, we're talking with the other Administrations comparing notes. Only this week, we've been talking with colleagues from the other Administrations about the potential for consequential knock-on changes for the SIs that the committee has been dealing with. I mention that simply to give an example of the depth of the technical work that we need to do before officials can give advice to ministers who can then consider, with Parliament, how to take that forward. We're on the case, but it's quite a complicated thing. Of course, there are still uncertainties about whether the withdrawal agreement will go through, and we don't yet know what the other Administrations plan to do themselves. Okay. Before I go back to Jamie, it's definitely one, potentially two. Right. Sorry, Jamie. Thank you for clarifying that, because that was unclear in my mind, Jamie. Thank you, and that does provide some additional clarity. I guess that what is perhaps unclear is I appreciate the lion's share of the bill that the cabinet secretary described in whichever name it manifests itself as around the Scottish Government's ability to pay farmers in Scotland. I wonder if that is different, however, to, for example, the content and purpose of the UK agriculture bill. Would we see, for example, a Scottish agriculture bill? What I don't want to do is touch on the WTO elements of the UK agriculture bill. I think that my colleague John Finnie will touch on that later, but I'm looking at more of the wider picture. I'll be looking at, for example, rural finance and support piece of legislation that covers forestry agriculture, et cetera, and an agriculture bill that will mop up some of the elements of the similarities between the UK agriculture bill. I think that that's still a bit of… I'm still a little unclear on that. I think that David will come in with the technical answer to that, but I can just make a simple point that those bills that I'm contemplating, one certainly possibly two that we would introduce in this Parliament to deal with rural support payments and the ability to change them. This is a technical matter. This is not a bill that we believe would range into all sorts of policy matters. It would simply be to deal with the financial mechanism and it would be drawn to make that clear. It's a tool in the box. It's not a post-Brexit rural policy bill. It is to provide us with the ability to formulate that policy and to change support finance schemes accordingly. David? Sorry, before the answer, that means… Eddwell, there is another bill that covers policy matters relating to agriculture in Scotland, because that's really at the crux of it. Well, the work that is done in respect of post-Brexit policies is policy work. It doesn't necessarily require primary legislation in itself, as I understand it. Of course, the document stability and simplicity that we published last summer, which we confirmed in the debate in this Parliament in January, where we confirmed the principles and the approach set out in stability and simplicity, which give us five years, a relative period of confidence for the farming community in particular. That's the way to formulate the policy. Legislation is not necessarily the vehicle for policy formulation, but legislation is required for power in order to provide support mechanisms and to make financial payments in relation to that support. I hope that I've got all that right, but David will tell you if it's… When you come in, if you could stick not to UK legislation but to Scottish legislation. Yes, indeed. I really to confirm what the cabinet secretary said. The bill that my team is working on now will be to create the tool to deliver the policy approach that was set for five years, which was set out in the stability and simplicity consultation paper. The policy for beyond that period, as was discussed previously, is work that has yet to be done. As the cabinet secretary said, the analysis on what that does or doesn't require in legislative terms by definition can't be done until the policy work has been done. The focus of the bill that we're preparing now is entirely on delivering stability and simplicity, on which there was the consultation last year, and the cabinet secretary confirmed in the debate in January that the Government was going to press ahead with that approach in light of the positive responses. I think that that leads us on to the next bit, which is Peter Chapman. We're back to fisheries, cabinet secretary. Your recent future of fisheries management in Scotland discussion paper indicated that the inshore fisheries bill that had been proposed previously will now be included in wider fisheries legislation. What else will be included in wider fisheries legislation? As Mr Chapman knows, the UK fisheries bill is currently before the Westminster Parliament. It would be premature to bring forward fisheries legislation before the Scottish Parliament, because we don't know what additional powers the UK fisheries bill is proposing to confer upon Scotland. We understand from ministerial statements that it is being envisaged that further powers will be passed to Scotland for fishing in respect of the fisheries bill, but it hasn't completed its passage through Westminster. As a matter of process, it would be premature and impossible to legislate in Scotland on those matters until we know what powers are going to be passed, if any, to Scotland by the UK fisheries bill. Once the UK fisheries bill has received a cent, we will consider all the powers available to us and any remaining gaps in those powers, and we will reflect on our direction of travel following the discussion around the discussion paper of the future of fisheries management and at that point decide whether additional legislation would be required. What we are saying is that until there is more clarity as far as the Brexit situation is concerned, nothing will change as far as inshore fisheries in Scotland is concerned. Is that a true reflection of what you just said? I was about to say that you agreed, but you just added a twist at the end. As far as powers go, we cannot legislate here unless and until we know what the powers we have are going to be and we don't. That is just again a statement of fact. I am not really making any political point at this stage. We need certainty to be able to legislate because legislation is really about conferring certainty by means of the legislative provisions included in any bill. We do not have certainty that we cannot legislate. That does not mean that we can advance the cause of inshore fisheries. We are doing that, Mr Gibb and his colleagues are doing that day in, day out, working with fisheries communities around Scotland and working hard to identify how we can help them. The assistance of fisheries devolved area is going on on a day-to-day basis. That is very important just to make that distinction, convener. Legislation is one thing, but most of the work that Mr Gibb and his colleagues do is to implement legislation to advance the cause of sustainable fisheries, to support communities, to try out pilot schemes of different types of fisheries, as we have been doing quite successfully recently in respect of electrofishing, in respect of trials in the western isles and so on and so forth, and to help in other areas like grant finance for smaller vessels in the scallop sector to equip them with remote electronic monitoring equipment, for example, which would again lead to sustainable fisheries and deal with other problems that have been identified under quite controversial. All of these things are just important for me to make the point that the work goes on in what is already a devolved area. The questions on fisheries, which I would like to bring in now. I think that you've got some, and then I'm going to come to John Finnie with his questions last year. Thank you. Extending beyond simply the info fisheries and looking at UK fisheries bill more generally, the Scottish Government may propose those on quota and effort and seafood levies and a number of other matters. We had a definitive response as to what the UK Government intends to do with those proposals. Well, the answer is no. In respect of post-Brexit, to be fair, I wouldn't expect there to be copper plate answers on all of these things just at the moment. I would stress up to now, particularly George Eustace myself, before he resigned. We had good, I don't think, resignations to do with me, but I think that we had quite good working relations. We tried to work together, but no, I don't think that it's the case that the future policy on these matters has been settled. I think that it is the case, or maybe Mr Gibb could give some more factual technical information, that there are differences of approaches that we believe should be taken and are at the moment taken in respect of some of these matters in addressing maximum sustainable yield, joke species and the approach towards quota. I don't know if Mr Gibb could interject at this point. Yes, I can very briefly, as the cabinet secretary states, we have slightly different management aspirations in Scotland, as do other parts of the United Kingdom, in terms of how we manage our quotas, how we manage the landing obligation, the commitments to maximum sustainable yield. The Scottish Government has always been very supportive of that. The target for 2020 is extremely challenging. We prefer to have a focus on international obligation, whereby it is to manage towards maximum sustainable yield, being one slight difference. Our fisheries are very different north of the border to south of the border, and therefore the management is likely to require different approaches in that sense. The next question is from John Finnie John. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to ask about the UK Agricultural Bill and particularly the World Trade Organization clause. Our understanding is that the Welsh Government has laid a legislative consent motion for changes to the agricultural bill in the House of Commons, and that includes a minimum of understanding between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on the WTO provisions and, importantly, how they will operate. Has the Scottish Government made any arrangements with the UK Government about the WTO provisions in the UK Agricultural Bill? Yes, we have sought to and we have worked constructively with the Government and the official level that work continues. There has been a disagreement in the Ag Bill about whether or not some legislative provisions are devolved or reserved. The World Trade Organization and the implementation of WTO rules and laws, the implementation of that, is an area in which we believe to be devolved. The UK Government takes a different view and says that that is a reserved entirely reserved function. We have had, convener, to agree to disagree on that. However, we have continued to work constructively with them and the Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues. That has included developing mechanisms to ensure that the UK continues to comply with its WTO obligations for notifying and reporting and for engagement in WTO committees and exploring a fair and equitable allocation of the UK's amber box support limit, which is a constraint on the extent to which payments can be made in certain ways for agriculture. We have emphasised that we are seeking to work constructively together. The last point that I make, convener, is that we have been clear that the disagreement on the clause could be resolved by the UK Government agreeing that the regulations to be made under it require the consent of Scottish Welsh and Northern Irish ministers. That would respect the evolution and underpin the constructive joint working that we want to see, and we do not quite understand why the UK is unwilling to accede to this request. Similarly, on the other clauses where there is disagreement that is about the nature of powers reserved or devolved and that is producer organisations and fairness in the supply chain, we have presented amendments to DEFRA. We have not just said that we do not agree with you, Yabu. We have presented amendments putting forward views that would address our concerns, and while those have been rejected in the UK committee, we hope that they will be looked on more favourably as the bill progresses. Thank you. Just for the voids of any doubt, there is no formal mechanism whereby if there is a disagreement between the devolved administrations in the UK Government that, I do not know, there are some arbitrar that would apply. Folding on from that, is it the Scottish Government's intention to lay another legislative consent motion in relation to the bill? The joint ministerial committee, I believe, is the body that would consider any formal request of differences. I am not sure that it is likely. I do not want to be unfair to the GMC. I am not sure, given its constitution, whether it is likely to reach any other opinion. It is an example of marking your own homework in a sense, rather than being an independent non-political body. Be all that as it may, as GMC is the answer to your first question. Just remind me of your second question again. Is the Scottish Government likely to lay another legislative consent motion in respect of this bill? There may be a requirement to do so. The new clause on the red meat levy relates to devolved issues, and that requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That is not a Brexit-related issue. There are some other matters that DEFRA are considering, which might require consent. The answer is yes. We may need to bring forward a legislative consent memorandum. Progress has been made in respect of the red meat levy and the repatriation of money that is attributable to Scottish animals in relation to those animals that are slaughtered in down south. Am I anticipating another question? As you often do, cabinet secretary. Sorry about that. I have just tried to be helpful. That is good. Thank you very much. Ann John. On the red meat levy, are you comfortable now with what the UK is proposing? I am not quite sure that I am ready to sit comfortably in my armchair. I am optimistic that we may have reached a positive outcome, but preparing for this debate actually occurred to me that I would prefer to see it in writing and be absolutely clear that QMS is satisfied that we know exactly what the agreement is going to be. We have a fair understanding of the additional revenue that will come to QMS to market Scotch beef and lamb and pork. I am not absolutely certain that that is the case, but I think that there are grounds for optimism. We will come back to the committee on that, if I may, Mr Mason, but I just wanted to be absolutely clear before I indulge in exuberant overconfidence. Okay. No, we are not expecting it to be exuberant or overconfident. You mentioned the extra money. Would that extra money, if it comes back, go to Quality Meat Scotland specifically for work in this area? That is their job. Quality Meat Scotland exists to promote quality meat produced in Scotland, so we would anticipate that, as far as I know, that is where the funding goes and the funding would be deployed for further marketing. The marketing has been tremendously successful, and I would like to see a lot more of it, particularly if there is a threat to Scotch lamb exports, for example. Perhaps there should be a big effort in the UK to promote Scotch lamb and lamb from other parts of the UK to encourage a take-up and consumption by UK consumers. That is an idea that we have put in discussions with Mr Gove and has broad support and principle. Thank you very much. The next question is from Richard Law. Yes, good morning, cabinet secretary. On 28 March 2019, your department wrote to the convener of public audit and post legislative scrutiny committee with an update on the delivery of rural payments. In line with that letter, will 95 per cent of basic payments be made by the end of June 2019, and are you content that all issues with the CARP-IT system are now resolved? Well, the first question, I am confident that we are on track to meet our obligations by the legal date towards the end of June. I have a weekly conference call with senior CAP officials, including very often Mr Watson. In that call this morning, I was advised that, in respect of the 218 Pillar 1 payments, 52 per cent or just over 9,000 have been paid this year, and a further 3,800 are in the pipeline to be paid, I believe, relatively quickly. That means, convener, that we are ahead of where we were last year, so that is progress. Let us not forget, of course, that the vast majority of the recipients of those payments will have received loan payments, in most cases, in October last year, two months ahead of the rest of the UK. In respect of that, is our CARP-IT system perfect? Well, we have made very solid progress. We have implemented a software and a computer apparatus of which I am no expert, which allows us to operate the system more effectively, including principally the LIPIS system, which is the land parcel information service, where we have had the services of a company based in Slovenia, who have been extremely responsive and helpful in working together on those matters. That LIPIS, what does it mean? It allows us to match the information obtained at the inspections by the ARPID inspectors who go out with a backpack and a big piece of kit and check the boundaries at various points of each boundary of every landholding, and then apply that data. There are over 1,000 million pieces of data. To apply that data to the digital mapping of every landholding in Scotland in order then to be able to operate effectively the application of the rules for the individual payment schemes to that holding. I am very confident that a lot of progress has been made, thanks to the good work of Scottish Government officials. If any more information is sought, then Andrew Watsden can supply absolutely all of it, can't you, Andrew? Before you move on to your question, I know that you have another question. Can I clarify something? You kindly shared in confidence a report with the committee on the CAP-IT system. I think that it was some two years ago. Would it be possible to update the committee on the recommendations in that report and where they have been met so that we are kept fully appraised of the situation? That seems to be the baseline data that the committee has. I am very happy to look at that and perhaps write to the committee because I can't recollect all the recommendations of that report two years ago, but it is an important piece of work. If it is an order, convener, unless Mr Watsden has got anything else to add now, then we will go back and look at that report and revert to the committee in writing. That would be very helpful. Certainly, there were a huge amount of recommendations, so I happened to reread it the other day, so I wouldn't expect you to have the answers to all of them. I think that it would be very helpful for the committee to have that. Richard, sorry, you had another question. I am actually reminded that I went to your office in Hamilton and saw all the equipment that the staff are using. I am very complimentary to the staff who are doing that work. Can we move on to another subject? People would like to know whether there are loans for basic payments here to stay if the UK stays in the EU or, in fact, leaves the EU? The loan payments for the basic payment, the bill of one scheme and for ELFAS, have provided crofters and farmers with an element of stability and certainty, not least because the loan payments have mostly been made at the level of 90 per cent of entitlement, and also because in all but a very limited range of circumstances there is no interest on the payments. Although they have to be called loan payments, they are in fact de facto more advanced payments than anything else unless there is an overpayment and a clawback, and the clawback is not paid within, I think, 21, 28 days. First of all, I think that the loan payments have provided stability to farmers and crofters in particular, and the whole supply chain who rely on that money going into the rural economy around £300 million a year. Secondly, will they be here to stay? I think that they have served a very useful purpose. As long as they are required, I would certainly be advocating to Mr Mackay that because they perform such a useful purpose, and because they have gained a degree of currency and acceptability and familiarity, they are a useful tool in the box. As to future decisions regarding budgetary finance, they have not been made, and they will need to be discussed very carefully with Mr Mackay. However, the other factor is that the loan payments were brought in because we were not certain about when we would be able to make the full payment and by what date we would be able to do that. Therefore, unless or until I have near 100 per cent certainty as to when those payments can be made, I would be loath to move away from the loan payments, provided, of course, that there is the financial transactions budget to support them. I do not think that it is correct to say that they are here to stay, but I think that they are extremely useful, and as long as they are required, I will continue as the farming minister to advocate that they should be used to help farmers and communities and rural Scotland. Mike, you want to come in briefly on that. As far as I understand it, the loans were there because of the failure of the computer system. We could not guarantee the payments to those entitled to receive them. My question really is, and I have just heard what you have said. I understand that you want to keep it as an option, but surely the intention must be to return to direct payments. Is that your intention? As soon as you are certain that the system is restored and that you return to normal? That would be the optimal solution. The optimal solution is that every payment is made as swiftly as it possibly can be, and that is the optimal solution. I am not persuaded that we are quite there yet, although we have made enormous progress. I am quite candid with you, and there is no point in anything else. As long as we need the loan payments, I will continue to advocate that they should be deployed, although that is a discussion to be had with the finance secretary, who has been extremely helpful and appreciative of the understanding of the needs of rural Scotland. I respectfully point out that we are not the only administration in the UK to have had issues. Those readers of private eye will be able to follow the progress or lack of it, with regard to environmental payments by DEFRA. They seem to be more interested than DEFRA than the difficulties that we have, maybe because we are overcoming them, but be that as it may. My day job is that this remains the top priority for me to get a handle on it. I think that we have got a handle on it, but at the same time it would be imprudent of me, where I am less than, say, 99 per cent certain to move away from a useful tool, which I think has served rural Scotland quite well. I do make the point that the Scottish farmers and crofters receive 90 per cent of their entitlement in most cases in October, two months earlier than the rest of the UK. They actually got their money earlier than the rest of the UK. If we think ahead to a no deal in the 31st of October, there becomes a compelling narrative and reason and motive to make sure that, if there is to be the uncertainty of a no deal possibility in October, we do everything that we can to mitigate that. Quite candid, that is a factor that is in my mind at the moment about this. Obviously, as soon as we can clarify the Brexit situation, that in turn allows us to approach the decision about whether or not to seek other loan provisions from Mr Mackay, an easier one to make. Cabinet Secretary, I clarify again in my mind that it is your intention to move back to the system as it was in the past, where the majority of payments have been paid 100 per cent by Christmas, that is the way it was. Is that your aim? That would be the optimal outcome, yes. The next question is from the deputy convener, Gail Ross-Gail. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary panel. You stated as far back as January or February that you wanted to try and maintain ELFAS payments at 100 per cent, even though they were due to go down in 2019, 2020 to 80 per cent and 40 per cent, respectively. Can you give us a progress update on where we are with that, please? Yes, ELFAS is an essential form of financial support for farmers and crofters, not least in Gail Ross's part of Scotland that she represents. I am acutely aware of just how important that support is for those farmers and the economic modelling and analysis of the relative importance of that. Financial support to these group of farmers indicates that it is extremely important to them. The importance of sustaining rural communities as well that is enriched by the farmers and crofters in their midst active farmers and crofters. Those are all factors that I weigh very heavily indeed. The rules of the ELFAS scheme itself are that this year we are able to make payment at the full amount. Indeed, I think that it is correct to say that this year's payments have exceeded previous years. However, next year, under the ELFAS rules, the maximum payment will be 80 per cent of total and the following year, 40 per cent. My aim is to try to, in real terms, maintain broadly the level of support at the existing levels insofar as it is possible to do so. That is challenging because one must operate within the SRDP, CAP and financial manual rules. Officials are currently working on what we call workarounds to see what the options are so that we achieve the objective of broadly speaking, not exactly or precisely but broadly speaking, keeping the levels of income around about where they are for those who many people would a judge need it most. It is a complex matter. I think that it is Mr Kerr that can perhaps add a bit more if the committee wishes in detail, but that is an overview of what I want to do and where we are at the moment. I am sorry. John, do you have anything to add? Just to expand a little bit on what the cabinet secretary has already said, we are working very hard on this issue. It has a lot of our attention and we have also been in informal discussion with stakeholders about the potential solutions that we have. We have broadly received quite supportive comments from a wide range of stakeholders in the National Beef Association and the National Sheep Association that have all spoken to us and others. We are working hard to resolve the issue and we recognise that the constraints are there, but we are absolutely committed to supporting those businesses who need it most in our hill and upland areas. If we were to take that level up to broadly speaking, what it is at the moment, so an extra 20 per cent and then the extra 60 per cent, do you have any idea how much that would cost? We have a clearer sense of what the money would be if we were to pay it at the full rate, so it is about £13 million for the first year. The thing that we need to bear in mind though is that the cohort of people that we are talking about are in receipt of many of them are in receipt of additional basic payments because of the way that our internal convergence has operated. We need to bear in mind that the total picture is a bit more complicated than just the L-Fast replacement or an additional compensation arrangement to make sure that those people are adequately safeguarded financially from the constraint that they face when they are farming. It is a complicated picture and we are trying to work through those issues as best we can. Cabinet Secretary, you quite rightly stated how important L-Fast payments are to a lot of our crofters and farmers. If we do not manage to mitigate those impacts, what are we going to do instead? At the moment, we are working hard to find a workaround in order to manage those impacts. That is an extremely important piece of work for me. We have discussed it with stakeholders, as John Kerr has said, and we will continue those discussions, and that work continues. There is another element to this, and that is the BU review on CAP convergence, which is currently under way. Any additional funding arising from that review would be prioritised for LFA. Given that Scotland's payment rate per hectare is only 45 per cent of the EU average, full convergence uplift would be a step in the right direction. It will still leave a short of the 196 hectare EU threshold, but I am due to meet with Lord Buw and present our arguments in respect of the convergence issue. It would be unthinkable that the review would not result in additional money to come into Scotland. We are due that money. That money was for Scotland. It came to the UK only because of Scottish farmers. The rest of the farmers of the UK, with all respect to them, had payments per hectare in excess of the trigger of 90 per cent of the UK of the EU average. In 2019, this year, Scotland is at the very bottom of the league table of payments per hectare of any farmers in the EU. That is the reality and a matter of fact. For those reasons, I hope that Michael Gove, who, to be fair, has expressed his desire to support hill farmers in Scotland and, broadly, that is a proxy for ELFAS. I have a reasonable working relationship with him. I hope that the fine phrase and sentiments will be matched by deeds in the upshot of the Buw review. We would expect the Buw review to conclude reasonably soon in the next month or so, would that be right? I just thought that I should add that because it is another piece in the jigsaw, and it is very important to put the pressure where. I think that, deservedly, it should be pressed, namely in the UK Government, to make good the loss of convergence money. Cabinet Secretary, there are a few follow-up questions on that. Peter, first, followed by Rhaedda. Thank you, sir, convener. I have been particularly worried by the answers that we have just had in ELFAS. It would appear that there is a real danger that the levels will be cut. I have heard nothing from you, cabinet secretary, or your support members here that anything has been achieved. You spoke about a workaround months ago, and you have used that same phrase today, that you are trying desperately for a workaround, but I hear nothing that gives me or hill farmers across Scotland any comfort that you are achieving anything towards doing that. I would be very worried, as most of the farming community will be, that you are really not achieving much. I do throw that out in any way confident that you can achieve the workaround that you speak about. First of all, let us rewind and go over some of the facts, shall we? This year's payment has been made at 100 per cent. You remember last year that the EU plan was that the payment for this year should be reduced to 80 per cent. That decision was countermanded because of intervention, quite rightly, by the EU Parliament. That then led to reinstatement towards the end of the financial year of being able to pay ELFAS at 100 per cent. I bussed a gut to make sure that we could move from 80 per cent to 200 per cent. First of all, the facts are that I have already illustrated and acted to make sure that ELFAS was maintained at the full level. I have already done that. That is just a matter of fact. It is not easy to make in-year changes to budgets. I can tell you that budgets are planned on an annual basis. They are not mucked to boot every month just because somebody wishes to. It is more complicated than that. It is orderly. I made absolutely sure that we went to 100 per cent as soon as we were able to do that, as well as pressing for that outcome. I am absolutely determined to find a workaround, but those things are not straightforward. The second point that I would make, convener, is that we do not know what the rules will be for 2020 because they depend on an outcome of Brexit. We are trying to make a workaround within the rules without knowing exactly what those rules are going to be. I am afraid that that does not make our task any easier. Lastly, if the Scottish Conservatives wish to fully sign up to our campaign to get the money back to Scotland to Scottish farmers, I would be a very happy man. As far as convergence money is concerned, you have our support. We have always given you support on that. However, this is a different issue. Convergence is one issue and this is another issue. It appears to me that you have no real confidence that you will be able to make up the difference going forward. Is it correct—I believe that it is—that the reduced ELFAS payments that are required by the EU will actually save the Scottish Government money, because the EU share will still come in at the same level and it will save the Scottish Government money, the reduced payment in ELFAS. No, that is not correct. I am determined to do that. I do not think that we should be bleakly pessimistic about this in our approach. There is a challenge. We are working very hard on this. I have stated where we want to get to and we will continue to inform the wreck of progress that we make. However, with respect, convergence and ELFAS are unbelycly connected here. The two are interlinked. Convergence is to restore the imbalance because Scottish farmers and crofters get the lowest amount per hectare of any farmers in Europe. If the money that was due to Scotland's £160 million balance was as paid as it should be—and I am pleased that Mr Chapman agrees that it should—then that problem disappears. If the lesser option of the Bureau of EU money for the period 2020-222 results as it should do in a substantial payment to Scotland, that allows us substantially to have the funding in order to tackle the challenge that we face. The two issues, with respect, are very much interlinked. However, we will continue our efforts and we will report to wreck as soon as we appropriately can. Cabinet Secretary, should I just go to Red Grant? Can I just ask you a question? The convergence uplift that you have just mentioned of £160 million, the back payment, if that was made, would that go directly to the farmers who it was due to for the years that they have missed out on it? That is partly a technical matter, but I have made it clear that that money should go to the rural community and I think that it would fall within the ambit of the SRDP overall. Politically, the answer is yes. After all, it is for them. It is not for the health service or education directly, it is for the farming community. It is in part a technical question, as well as a question of political will, so I do not know whether Mr Kerr wants to add anything to that. From a technical point of view, in order to make the payment in a legal way, a little bit depends on how the back pay would come to us. If the treasuries were to write the wrong of the past and simply give the transfer of the moneys to us, we could spend it where, as the cabinet secretary has said, we think that it is needed most, and I think that we have made plain what that would be. If it comes to us in the form of something that has to be paid out through the cap ceilings, then we would be a little bit more constrained about how we pay the money out, and it is those issues that we are currently still working through. If I can clarify first, if basic payments go up, then someone's L fast goes down. Am I right in understanding that from what you said? No, the two are not linked in that way. Okay, I maybe picked that up wrong because that was what I thought you'd said. Can I ask about whether or not you have considered looking at a scheme of natural constraint payments, which I think would fit in with the EU's needs for a scheme, rather than an L fast payment, and why? Have you not moved in that direction? What's the implications of that? Well, we did look very carefully at the ANC scheme, which, as Rhoda Grant says, is an EU-approved alternative. However, there wasn't a clear consensus as to any particular brand or option of mechanism under ANC, and it was clear that some current recipients of L fast would lose out under ANC, and some others who are not in L fast, and arguably rightly so, would qualify under ANC possibly. Those were considerations that led us to conclude that the benefits of L fast are certainty and clarity, and that moving to ANC would not enjoy majorities or consensus support and would involve substantial changes with many losers and some gainers. We didn't consider that that would work for the Scottish context. I'll move on to the next question, which is from me, and it's on a wider agricultural issue. Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with Lord Gill when he said that the 2016 land reform act was stifling the creation of new agricultural tenancies? Well, I take very seriously Lord Gill's view, and indeed I read the reports of what he had to say. I think it's safe to say that there has been progress made in respect of relations between landlord and tenant, and I don't have the right bits of paper right in front of me now, but just some headline points I would like to make. There was an analysis of relationships between landlords and tenants, and that showed that actually there was a very high satisfaction rate of landlords, slightly less with tenants of 80 or 90 per cent. That kind of order, and what I took from that is that most landlord-tenant relationships are operating reasonably well. Now, of course some aren't, or a minority aren't, and that's serious, but actually the picture is less bleak than sometimes it is painted. Secondly, the part 10 changes in the 16 bill have led to, I think, around about 70 or 80 new modern limited duration tenancies being taken out. Third general point that I would make is that, in the response to Lord Gill's comments, which I think have caused a provoked useful debate, I think that Chris Nicholson from the Scottish Tenant Farmers Association made the comment that he felt that the changes that have been brought in by us, the wego compensation measures, the modern limited duration tenancies, the commitment on rent review provisions and on asignation are all welcome. In addition to that, the creation of the tenant farming commissioner, Bob McIntosh, has been very well received. In other words, there are different views on this, and I respect all, I'm keen to understand everyone's views here, landlords, tenants and others, but the body representing tenant farmers in Scotland felt that there wasn't a case, as Lord Gill stated, for a widespread review of landlord, tenancy, legal framework at this point, because we're just bedding down the changes and working on bringing in the remainder of the changes asignation and rent review, which Parliament mandated as to from 2016. First of all, cabinet secretary, I'm glad you mentioned the satisfaction between landlord and tenant, certainly from the information that I've seen. In the majority of cases and the vast majority of cases, it's a good relationship, but the fact of the matter is that we are saying less land being made available for agricultural tenancies and it remains one of my, and I'm sure that everyone else on the committee's stronger wish, without speaking for them, to see more agricultural tenancies created, more opportunities for new entrants, and we're not seeing that. Do you not think that it's time now to grasp the nettle and take some action to make sure that new tenancies are created? As I said, we have. The nettle has been well and truly grasped, and the figure that I was looking for was the modern limited duration tenancies came into force on 30 November 2017. At least 69 of those tenancy types were already in operation in 2018. I've alluded to the favourable comments from Christopher Nicholson. There's more work to be done. I agree with that. We have indicated in response to the committee before that the Government has no plans to introduce an absolute right to buy for tenant farmers. We would like to see more take-up of the available vehicles for tenancy. Also, as you'll be well aware, convener, there is scope for contract farming arrangements and flexible arrangements, which some farmers find a useful business model to pursue. However, I do think that there's perhaps a feeling across the parties that we want to do more with respect to new entrants. We have done a lot in this session of Parliament. We've been the only part of the UK to devote considerable funding to new entrants. We would like to do more to bring in new blood, but, again, there's an awful lot of positives happening. I'm the pleasure of meeting a group of young farmers on a scholarship visit to California, and they're a credit to Scotland, as are young farmers and crofters throughout the land. I'll resist the offer to be overly gloomy. I don't think that I'm gloomy about the potential that's out there. It's just realising the potential by making more land available, which I haven't seen. Perhaps we'll leave it at that. We're more in to come back in with her question in relation to a different subject. Thank you, convener. In your answer to my opening question, we briefly touched on the sheep sector and the impact of Brexit on the sheep sector. There have been some alarming headlines in terms of their needing to be emanating from Westminster and needing to be mass slaughter of sheep. Can you, in a bit more detail, spell out what the implications of Brexit are for the sheep sector? What is the worst-case scenario for the sector? How are we in Scotland going to be able to help our sheep farmers? A third of UK land production is exported and the lion's share goes to the continent. It's really the event of a no-deal Brexit that we're principally concerned about in this respect. Exports to Europe would face tariffs of 40 per cent or more, making it simply uncompetitive. It's relevant to point out that, at the same time, as Scotch, UK land, facing tariffs of 40 per cent, more than 100,000 tonnes of New Zealand land would be able to be exported to Europe tariff-free. It's colloquially a double whammy, and it leads directly to very serious concerns that there would be a collapse if there's a no-deal in the export market. The UK market or other sources could not readily absorb that extra volume of lamb that currently goes to European markets. Nobody wants this to happen. If they want to avoid this, the best outcome is to avoid this happening. Purchasers, clients, customers in Europe want to continue to buy Scotch lamb. They want to buy it because it's high-quality, because people enjoy it. Therefore, there's a commercial impetus to continue this. Let's not be too pessimistic about this, but we have to plan for a compensation scheme. I've been pressing, along with Leslie Griffiths in Wales, particularly in the Northern Irish Administration, Michael Gove and his colleagues, for some considerable time, along with the NFUS and the NFU south of the border and the National Sheep Association for a compensation scheme. To be fair, the DEFRA has accepted that there is a case. They have done a certain modelling. The modelling shows the need for a compensation scheme. John Kirk can perhaps come in the moment and remind me of the precise, estimated quantum of the expected compensation required, but it would be of a very tall or very substantial amount. There was a debate about how such a scheme should operate. Should it operate for a cowl system, should it operate for a headage payment and for various other variants, I think that the consensus has emerged that although we'd all prefer to avoid this, if there has to be the case, then a headage scheme is the one that I think most of the stakeholders, at least in the meeting I had on 11 April, agreed would be the least worst. That's one point. The other point is, who would pay for this compensation? Frankly, this is a direct result of a no deal. We don't have a budget, a compensation budget. We don't have money hanging around waiting to be used for this because we have no budgetary provision for it. The UK Treasury would be responsible for it. I have pressed repeatedly to confirm that the UK will meet those responsibilities. What I can say is that, in the meeting that took place in January of this year, Mr Gove made a commitment that Brexit costs would be met by the UK Government, and that commitment was minited and those minutes were not challenged. In the face of it, Mr Gove has undertaken formally, as recorded and reflected in the minutes of a formal meeting, that the UK will make payment of that compensation scheme. That said, convener, we have yet to receive confirmation that Mr Gove's commitment will be matched by a Treasury commitment, and we will, over the next weeks and months, press further that commitment, but not from the point of scoring points, but from the point of view of setting up a scheme, discussing it with those who are affected because we need to do that to get it right, and having it ready to be deployed if and I hope that it is not necessary. The next question then is from John Finnie John. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to ask you about the impact of extreme weather events in the agriculture sector. You may be familiar with that. A recent WWF report estimates that the extreme weather events in 2018—you will recall that that was severe snow in March and higher feeding costs over the summer—may have resulted in losses to the agricultural sector of £161 million. Can I ask what action the Scottish Government is taking to engage with and support the sector in managing the consequences of extreme weather events? As an addendum to that, accepting the Scottish Government's position on a climate emergency bill, would you accept that this is just one of many reasons why people think that there should be a climate emergency bill? As to weather impacts, Mr Finnie is absolutely correct that last year's weather had very significant impacts. The heavy rain and snow at the end of February increased the numbers of fallen stock, and the late spring resulted in delays to the growing season for arable farmers. Straw and fodder remained in short supply, and the lack of growth in grass in the spring meant that there was a need to source more expensive feeding. Some farmers talked about not being able to get their cattle out in the fields early enough, and they had to therefore use more of their bought-in feed supplies and reserves. This all has potentially had knock-on effects, because if animals are not fed up as they are fed to the desired level, that reduces their value in the subsequent year. Compounding to that, the very dry, sunny weather over the summer meant that the problems were compounded and exacerbated with the lack of water. In areas such as the north-east, convener, it is a factor that we have to bear very much in mind. All in all, the farmers around the table will understand those things from their own work better than I do, but I have had countless discussions with farmers, all of whom we have said that last year was particularly difficult for them in trying. Therefore, although the Scottish Government does not have the budgetary capacity to compensate for weather-related losses, it is simply just not possible. We have to be quite candid about that and not be mealy-mouthed and pretend that we can do things that are beyond the ken of any Government. That is just not really feasible, I am afraid. We did respond to the situation in a measured, proportionate and direct way. We set up a fallen stock scheme of £250,000. We donated some additional funding to the Royal Scottish Agricultural Benevolent Society, whom I met again in the last couple of months, and we did terrific work in reaching out directly to individual farmers who are perhaps isolated and under real pressure. We also set up a national rural mental health forum, chaired by Jim Hume, a member of this place. That is a joint initiative between myself and Claire Hockie, the mental health minister. Those are very serious matters. One that I raised with Mr Goff, and without being unduly alarmist, suicide is a serious problem within the farming community in Britain, I am afraid. One must be alert to the fact that additional pressures can only increase the risks of loneliness, isolation and the feeling of helplessness of the situation in which people feel under massive pressure. I am keen to see that we can continue to do what in practice we can. Working with the grain, our sabi do a good job. They provide the service. The last thing that I should say is that the weather advisory panel that we set up will meet again as and when needed. It worked with farmers to find practical solutions. I should not underestimate the extent of which farmers have learned from the difficulty and used the lessons to change their practices in order to deal with the situations that arise. Mr Finnie mentioned the approach of climate emergency bill. That is really something for Ms Cunningham to take forward. Of course, I would be happy to hear the arguments for that and take part in those discussions internally. However, to conclude, this is an extremely serious matter. Governments can do everything that we can do, recognising that there are some things that I am afraid that we really just cannot do. I am grateful for that detailed response, cabinet secretary. I would align myself with your comments about the support that is put in place for agricultural workers and others in the rural sector and the good work done by the Benevolent Association. You said that those exchanges were candid. Can I assume that you will have said to the sector that unless things are radically changed they can expect further episodes of this nature? I might be wrong here but I think that the word the candor that I was referring to was the way that I expressed my views to Mr Gove. In fact, there is a dead certainty that I would have been candid and expressed my views to Mr Gove. I was not thinking about the climate change or climate emergency aspect of that, but I certainly agree that it is an extremely serious problem. Therefore, any potential ways in which we can address that in practice are the ones that I would support considering that. The next question is from Jamie Greene. Thank you, convener. Can I move on to the issue of your forestry strategy? You recently said and I could quote you as saying, forestry and farming should go hand in hand and we are determined that the smaller guy gets more of the cake. Cabinet secretary, who is the smaller guy and what is the cake? Well, there are lots of smaller guys, I guess, and we want to help them all. First of all, we have our new forestry strategy that was laid in Parliament. It was a large piece of work, and I think that it was brought by and from most of all stakeholders. The next stage is to move on to an implementation plan, but, in the meantime, we have been working extremely hard to support a number of initiatives in agri forestry, in forestry in croft land, in community forestry, also supporting smaller businesses that are involved through harvesting and processing grants that support small-scale SMEs. For example, the Association of Scottish Hardwood Somillers, the Scottish Woodlot Association and the Woodland Croft Partnership. I know that the take-up of forestry grants under the main forestry grant scheme has been quite high from applicants with smaller projects. In fact, the statistics indicate that from April 15 to October 18, 50 per cent, or 11,884 hectares, of the total approved area came from schemes under 50 hectares. The last point that I make is that, in order to help the smaller guy, the grant funding per hectare is typically much higher for small-scale projects than for larger projects. That is quite deliberately to bring forward and encourage and enhance the number of applications from smaller landowners or others who wish to have an element of forestry in their farm, for example. I am glad that you mentioned the forestry strategy that was published in February of this year. In the strategy, it says that, within 12 months of laying the strategy before the Parliament, the Government will publish a more detailed implementation, monitoring and reporting framework. Could you outline when we ought to expect to see that detailed strategy? Yes, I can. We will publish it by April next year, one year after the laying of the strategy approximately. The plan will include milestones, indicators and a reporting schedule. We will also establish a national stakeholder group involving key forestry stakeholders to advise on the plan and support on the implementation of the strategy. I want to stress that, at the moment, there is a power of work being done anyway. We have implementation at the moment, we have a huge amount of activity, very good activity in forestry across the whole range, but the new forestry bill, with complete devolution at the beginning of April, allows us to do even more and to work more closely together to deliver that across all the directorates and public agencies that are involved. We know that the plan is to go from 10,000 hectares a year to 15,000. I think that I read some place in the recent past that you had commented that you might be able to go to even 18,000 hectares per year. Is that your aim, your stated aim, that you would like to increase even further? I always like to surpass expectations, as members know, but the precise formal position is that our existing target is 10,000 hectares. We should ascertain around June whether we have met that target and I think that the signs are promising. That target rises to 15,000 by 2,025 in steps. The 18,000 figure comes from CONFOR. CONFOR recently set out details of its ambitious proposals, where across the UK there would be an increase in forestry, both for economic and climate change reasons. As I understand it, its allocation to Scotland of this enhanced ambition for forestry is that 18,000 hectares a year should be plantable by 2030. I welcome that as an aspiration. There is a huge amount of land in Scotland. The question is getting the right land for the right purpose and balancing the needs of various types of land usage. That is really the debate, but there is no shortage of potential land suitable for various different types of forestry throughout Scotland, as is evident when one closely studies a map of Scotland. I will move on to a subject that we briefly touched on before, because there is still some time in hand. Peter, I think that yours is the next question on that. It is a question of back to fisheries again. There is a legislative target in the common fisheries policy to fish at MSY maximum sustainable yield by 2020 for all stocks. Do you think that that is a reasonable aspiration that we can achieve? The UK fully supported, I should say, by Scottish ministers has consistently spoken at December council of its support for speedy steady progress towards the setting TACs at maximum sustainable yield levels by 2020. At the same time, the UK has consistently and publicly reserved the right to argue for extensions to the target in certain limited situations. I do not know if Mr Gil would like to expand on that, which might be helpful for the committee. I can very briefly, in my experience of yet to find a professional adviser who suggested that meeting maximum sustainable yield for all stocks in mixed fisheries, such as we have in the North Sea and the west coast of Scotland, is likely to be easy, far less achievable, regardless of whether the Scottish Government has promoted that. When we set catch quotas based on scientific advice, the majority of our key fish stocks are set on that basis. There are genuine reasons to depart from that, west of Scotland cotton biting and, most recently, the macro negotiations that we did last year. Two points that I would make for the committee's benefit. It should be born in mind that it is not within the Scottish Government or the UK's gift, singularly. A lot of those are done in international forums where they are not—so the 2020 target is a CFP target. Our Norwegian colleagues, for example, are not bound by that. They are bound by international law, which states that you should work towards MSY. It does not give a fixed date target, and that is one of the issues in the UK fishes bill that we are working through with our deaf colleagues. Mr Gil, you mentioned mackerel in your response. How do you respond to the marine stewardship councils' decisions to suspend MSC certification for north-east mackerel fisheries? What is the Scottish Government going to do to improve the situation? I am very positive news on that. The negotiating mandate that the Cabinet Secretary approved for me allowed us to take a principled approach. The scientific advice was for a 61 per cent cut. We sought and persuaded and managed to get all parties to accept a 20 per cent cut, which is a principled constraint mechanism. The advice was more uncertain—all scientific advice for fishes is uncertain—but it was more uncertain than ever before. There were significant issues around environmental factors, and we asked for that to be re-benchmarked. That re-benchmarking has taken place. I just heard last night that we are likely to publish revised advice that will move the advice that we had, which was for 320,000 tonnes, up to 770,000 tonnes, which confirms the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government's advisers—a view that there were errors and that it was the right thing to do. Our understanding is that MSC, when it sees the published advice that has been pushed for by the Scottish Government for that very purpose, will hopefully be in a position to re-accredit the mackerel fishery. I should just say that the Scottish Plaget Fishmen, although they have been very disappointed about the loss of it, have not been adversely affected as the accreditation was lost to all parties, not just Scottish Fishmen. There is very positive news on that point. I reflect. I think that the industry, the fishermen at the sharp end, have always said that the scientific advice was very suspect. They were seeing good shows of mackerel fish out there when they were out and working. You have basically confirmed that the advice has changed. The revised advice is going to change considerably, and we always work very close to it with our stakeholders. They are the people who know best firsthand what is happening out there, yes. One of the big changes in fishing has been the introduction of the discard ban. I wonder if the minister could update us on the Scottish Government's view of how that is going and what improvements are being sought or explored. Obviously, the discard ban has a number of challenges, not least the buy-in from the industry and the uncertainty around levels of compliance, and in particular the so-called choke species issue, which have the potential significantly to limit fishing activity because of the lack of available quota in the system, as Mr Stevenson well knows. We are addressing those challenges and have been addressing those challenges for some time on a number of fronts, including working very closely with POs, industry representatives, to develop practical solutions such as quota pools for undersized fish. At the recent December council, as Mr Stevenson well knows, we prioritised finding solutions for choke risks associated with low or zero total allowable catch stocks. We are working on a whole range of potential solutions, not least for West of Scotland cod and whiting. We also continue to support the use of remote electronic monitoring as the most effective way of monitoring and enforcing the landing obligation and continuing to press other member states to create the level playing field needed to introduce that. In other words, fishingmen in Scotland would not thank us if they had to abide by that, but other foreign vessels fishing in the UK waters were not subject to the same rules. That would be an unlevel playing field and plainly unfair, so it is one of those situations where it is, in principle, easy to recognise that remote electronic monitoring is a role to play, but everybody needs to abide by the rules here if it is to have buy-in from the industry and, indeed, the desired effect. Cabinet Secretary, you referred to other member states and the activities of their fishermen in our waters. I think that that goes to the heart of many of the concerns that fishermen have always had, more broadly, about the common fisheries policy. I very much welcome a piece of secondary legislation that came through as part of the Brexit activity that shows that foreign vessels require a locally issued licence to fish post Brexit. More generally, are we moving to a position where it may be possible to get foreign vessels that are fishing in our territorial waters conforming to the same rules as our local fishermen? That is in this area, in discards, the current focus, but it has been a focus across a whole range of different areas. Is there anything possible or happening on that? It seems absolutely right that this is what is required. There can't be one set of rules for Scottish fishermen that are draconian, whereas foreign vessels are not required to abide by those rules. That would not work and would not be a recipe for disaster. Therefore, it is not something that we can advocate. At the same time, we want sustainable fishing to be a central part of our discussion paper, and, increasingly, society expects it to be rightly so sustainable fisheries. Therefore, remote to electronic monitoring equipment, which is being taken up in some fisheries—for example, scallops—is something that has a role to play with regard to the specific technical aspects about how that is done in practice with regard to licensing of foreign vessels. Maybe Mr Gibb could enlighten the committee here. I've just got the signal very briefly. If we are out of the EU under Brexit, equivalents will be delivered and there will be a requirement for all non-UK vessels in UK waters, Scottish waters, to have a licence issued. That will require them to abide by all of the same rules that any Scottish fisherman does. The cabinet secretary is on record as committing to cameras on board initially our pelagic vessels when that equivalence point is available. We will take that forward. Meanwhile, in the CFP and the EU, we are working with the regional groups to try to ensure that equivalence is done. We are working on a discard reduction ban. Collectively applied by all member states in the west coast of Scotland for codon and whiting, for that equivalence point, is very challenging and very difficult to do. However, if it is a standard rule within the CFP, all member state vessels have to apply it. If it is a domestic rule, that is the issue around equivalence. Under Brexit, as Mr Siemensson pointed out, licensing will deliver that equivalence for us. I think that notwithstanding my or the cabinet secretary's views on Brexit, do you think that leaving the CFP will be a good thing for Scottish fishermen and I am not making any political points but leaving the structures of CFP? Do you think that that will present any positives? We have always opposed the CFP and, indeed, the compromise proposals that we put forward. Now, more than two years ago, as part of the Brexit debate, we recommended that we continued members of the single market and customs union, but we came out of the CFP. Those were our proposals at the time, convener. What I would say is that the CFP has caused real problems for the fishing communities over the years, especially in the past. However, now, the choke species issue and the way in which it is tackled is an example of where. I think that there is frustration not just on the part of Scotland and the UK, but in the cursals that I have attended just about every maritime state expressed extreme concern about the handling of the choke species issue because they were coming at it from the same angle that there are, with a more flexible approach, ways of tackling it effectively and sustainably. Yes, there are disadvantages. The other thing that I would say is that the settlement that we have achieved in Europe two years ago, for example, was very favourable to Scotland. We did, thanks largely to the work of Mr Gibbon and his team, we are able to influence the UK's approach and negotiation in a positive fashion and get outcomes where we saw a very satisfactory result. It is not all a complete disaster. There is a tendency to be a little bit monochrome about analysing this. I would also say that it is not clear what is going to replace the European Maritime Fisheries Fund. We know that it is going to be replaced by something called the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. That is four words, but other than those four words, we know nothing. There was to be a consultation last year on that 2018. That was shelved and we are told that it is going to be coming forward on some unspecified day. The real point is that, as I have learned when I have visited ports such as Peterhead, Fraserborough, Scrabster, iMouth and many others, the MFF has actually been a very positive part. It is not part of the CFP, but it is part of the EU. The workforce issue, the EU workers, if we lose all those workers, as Ryan Scatterty said, a fish processor from the North East who I know a bit and have visited and spoken to, he says that he can have all the fish in the world, but it is not much use if you do not have the workers to process them. There is that aspect as well. It is not a single issue. It is a multifaceted picture. Without risking going on and on, I do not like to do that at all. We need to consider things in the round. The final question is from Rich La Richard. The fisheries protection vessels. The Royal Navy has been said to be boosting the fishery patrol fleet ahead of the UK exit from the EU. The Welsh Government has announced the names of new fishery protection vessels. Last year, my colleague John Finnie was asked about the preparedness of marine Scotland, particularly in relation to fishery protection. Are you happy with the number and adequacy of the fishery protection vessels that will be available to marine Scotland following the UK exit from the EU? Mr Isle raises an important point. It is part of our no-deal planning and our commitment to protect the interests of our businesses, including fisheries vessels and coastal communities. We have taken steps to maintain and enhance our marine compliance capabilities and ensure the maintenance of law and order at sea. That is an issue that is extremely important and has been considered by many. The work that we are doing is not only tendering for an additional inshore patrol vessel but also securing a significant increase in aerial capabilities to patrol the Scottish zone in order to deter illegal activity. A programme of refits, convener, has also been undertaken to ensure that existing assets are capable of doing more, of meeting potentially increased demands upon their time and effort. Yes, that is an important area. We are doing the steps that I have outlined and we are keeping it closely under review. Thank you Cabinet Secretary and your team Alan Mike, David, Andrew and John for the evidence that you have given this morning. I am not going to suspend the meeting, I am going to move straight on to the next item. If I could ask witnesses to leave quietly, thank you again for the evidence that you have given. We are going to move straight on to agenda item 2, which is subordinate legislation. The item is to consider two negative instruments as detailed in the agenda. I would remind the committee that no motions to annul or representations have been received in relation to those instruments. I would ask if anyone has any comments or recommendations relating to those instruments. John. Thank you, convener. I read with great interest and was to have no issue with the content or direction. I was somewhat impressed with the comprehensive nature of the supporting documents. There were impact tests for Scottish firms' competition, consumer, legal aid, digital and all sorts. Although there was specific mention in the documents about Shetland, there was not an island's impact assessment. I accept that it may be that that is not yet in place or seem to be in place, but it would be a good example of where, given the comprehensive nature of some additional comment, I wonder if I could be right to the Scottish Government about that. To establish, first and foremost, if there should have been one, and perhaps secondly, to commend them doing everything possible, except in the heavy workload, to put one in place for anything future between now and the time when it does require it to be one, if that's the case. John, thank you very much. I think that it's very appropriate, because we were the committee that went through the island bill to write to the Government and ask, should there have been one, and suggest that having passed and enacted the legislation, it would perhaps be appropriate in the future for this committee to consider. Does the committee agree that we should do that? On the basis that we do that, are you happy that there are no further recommendations in relation to the instrument? That's agreed then, and that, therefore, concludes today's committee business. Thank you very much, and I now close the meeting.