Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Official Report 829KB pdf

---

Implications of the Outcome of the European Union Referendum (Agriculture and Fisheries)

Good morning and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2018 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I ask everyone to ensure that their mobile phones are switched to silent. No apologies have been received.

Agenda item 1 is on the implications for agriculture and fisheries in Scotland of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.

I invite members to declare any relevant interests, such as agriculture and fishing. I will start off by declaring that I am a member of an agricultural farming partnership.

I have a small registered agricultural holding.

I have a farming background in Aberdeenshire.

Thank you. The committee will receive an update from the Scottish ministers on the implications for Scotland of the UK’s departure from the EU. We will focus on the impact of Brexit on the agriculture and fisheries sectors.

I welcome Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity and Michael Russell, Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland’s Place in Europe. They are accompanied by these Scottish Government officials: Ian Davidson, head of agriculture policy division; John Brownlee, strategy and post-EU referendum unit; and Ian Mitchell, EU strategy and migration division.

I extend a special welcome to everyone who is watching the committee on Facebook Live.

I believe that both the cabinet secretary and the minister wish to make an opening statement. I am happy for you to do so, but I ask you to limit your statements to three minutes. After that, we will have to move on because the committee has questions that it wishes to ask.

I will be Fergus’s John the Baptist.

I want to take a moment to reflect where we are in the context of Brexit: we are less than 10 months from the UK’s possible exit from the EU; we have the shape of a status quo transition but no agreement on the terms of withdrawal; and discussions—not negotiations—have started between the UK Government and the EU on the future relationship including agriculture and trade, but they continue to make no progress due to the unreality of the Government’s demands for all the perks with none of the obligations.

The UK Government is preparing a white paper on the future relationship, the contents of which we discussed in the new Brexit ministerial forum two weeks ago. However, we now understand that, although we have put work into preparing our input, that input is no longer required, because there is no date for publication—we learned that from the Financial Times. We also learned today that the white paper is apparently finished but is not being shared with the Cabinet, let alone the Scottish Government. It is really business as usual in the chaos of Brexit.

My recent engagements with stakeholders, particularly in the agriculture sector, emphasise the increasing concern about those difficulties. There are huge issues to be addressed, such as access to EU and global markets, future customs arrangements, recruiting the individuals needed to continue growth in the sector and protecting the value and reputation of Scottish produce.

I am determined to support my colleagues in any way that I can to try to gain some of the information that is required, but we know very little more than we knew before. There are signs of growing frustration right across this sector and others. I am happy to refer to those later.

I continue to discuss these matters with the UK Government when possible and to make representations to the UK Government.

We have also not yet resolved the issue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. On 15 May, the Scottish Parliament, by a large majority, resolved not to give legislative approval to the bill. On that day, on behalf of the political parties involved, I wrote to David Liddington to ask him to come to Scotland to discuss the issues with members of the political parties.

I am very disappointed that it took three weeks and a reminder to elicit a response. I had a response on Friday, which I will publish today, which did not address the issue but which asked for new proposals from the Scottish Government or from other political parties. I have had to write to Mr Liddington again today—I am publishing that today and I have provided the committee with a copy of that letter, although this is the first opportunity that I have had to mention it—to say that the constitutional position is very clear: if the Scottish Parliament resolves not to grant a legislative consent motion that has been requested, the UK Government must withdraw the part of the bill for which it has requested the LCM. Therefore I would expect and hope that the UK Government will now withdraw clause 11 from the bill, as it is required to do by the constitutional settlement by which we live. If the UK Government refuses to do so, we will be in very difficult and dangerous times. I have provided a copy of that letter to you, convener, and it is being published this morning.

I will be happy to expand on those issues later.

Thank you, minister. I acknowledge that, as you came in, you gave us a copy of that letter, which I will circulate to the committee after the meeting, so that members can consider it in real time.

Good morning, everyone. Michael Russell has set out the overall situation, and I will touch on matters as they affect the rural economy. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, and I have met Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ministers and Welsh ministers on four occasions since November. I regret to say that we have little or no further information.

We have repeatedly asked for information on DEFRA’s agriculture and fisheries bills. I am unable to confirm when the bills will be introduced, what they will contain or to what extent the UK Government intends to apply them to Scotland. I do not know how the bills will deal with important matters, such as protected geographic indications.

I do not know what the UK Government intends to do in respect of the repatriation of the meat levy. I met the head of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board yesterday to discuss the matter.

I have no idea what will happen in respect of pillar 2 payments after Brexit day—that is just next March, convener—which cover a vast array of long-term projects that need to be planned over a period of years. We have no idea what the assurances are beyond the term “farm support”, which obviously does not cover the totality of arrangements. We have no clarity about what powers are to come to Scotland. We do not know whether there will be border inspection posts.

We have learned through the press of the Armageddon option, which was apparently advice to the UK ministers themselves, believe it or not. I checked in Wikipedia to be sure that I did not mistake it, but “Armageddon” means the end of the world, so it could hardly be more serious or hyperbolic than that. It is not language that I would normally use. The particular prediction was that, in the worst scenario, there would be no food on the supermarket shelves in a matter of a couple of days—not just in Scotland but in parts of England, too. That is not the Scottish Government’s view but advice to the UK Government.

Lastly, on convergence funding, as members know, I strongly believe that, if ministers make a clear and unequivocal promise it is incumbent on them to deliver that promise. Mr Gove, who is an extremely intelligent man and one of the most courteous individuals I have ever met, promised last year that there would be a convergence review. He did that after a parliamentary statement, with support from all parties, including yours, convener, and pressure from members of Parliament, including from your party, convener.

Now it appears that that has been deferred, and is possibly not going ahead at all. I find that quite remarkable. I cannot imagine that Mr Gove is man who would not keep his word and therefore I am using this opportunity today to make a further plea: that review must surely go ahead. We have agreed that Lord Bew will lead it and there will be input from Scotland but, for reasons that I will perhaps be able to explaining later—as I think that I have exhausted my time—that is fundamental for the future of the rural economy.

Thank you, cabinet secretary.

Good morning, panel. I hear and share your frustration. The first couple of questions come under the heading “preparedness”. NFU Scotland issued a press release on 16 May in which it questioned whether the Scottish Government has

“the capacity to deliver and implement a new Scottish agricultural policy.”

It goes on to lay out in great detail what it says are the staffing arrangements, talking about DEFRA having

“filled some 650 vacancies across the Defra Group”.

I cannot comment on the accuracy of those statements, but I ask the cabinet secretary to outline what resources and staff have been made available across his portfolio—specifically, agriculture—to meet the demands of European Union exit.

First, I have an excellent team of officials supporting me in the agriculture sector, and we will come on to discuss the common agricultural policy information technology in the second part of the meeting. The officials have applied themselves with diligence, extraordinary commitment and dedication. I thank them for the work that they are doing, particularly in the local rural payments inspections division offices, all the main ones of which I have visited.

Do we have enough officials to deal with the demands of Brexit? No, we do not. I understand that there has been an agreement in respect of financial arrangements, on which, of course, Mr Mackay is the lead. DEFRA has already received substantial funds to recruit more staff, and I have learned anecdotally that it has been able to do that.

We have been allocated funds by the UK, not on a Barnettised scheme but on the assumption that only my department, essentially, will have any additional pressures—which is complete nonsense. From memory I think that the sum involved was £37.3 million. That is 2.5 per cent of the consequentials, Mr Finnie, which is way below the Barnet share. Be that as it may, I discussed it at a meeting with Mr Mackay in the past couple of weeks. Negotiating the quantum of the share of the consequentials—if you see what I mean—is in Mr Mackay’s portfolio, so the committee might wish to pursue that with him.

However, for my part, first, it is absurd that we are not getting at least a Barnettised share; secondly, every directorate of the Scottish Government is affected by Brexit in one way or another and therefore demands are placed on us in addition to running our day-to-day business; and, thirdly, for the purposes of the challenges that we face, we recognise in practice that we are looking for quality, not quantity. It is not an answer to problems to recruit a vast number of additional people; we have to have the additional people who have the required skills, as I think NFU Scotland has recognised. However, the position at the moment is that, as with everything else with the UK, the amount of resources that we will receive, which is entirely dependent on the UK Government as far as I can see, has not yet been settled.

10:15  

I hear what you say on both Barnett and the portfolios, but £37 million is a significant sum of money. Has the need for any additional staff or resources been addressed? That is an important issue for the Scottish Parliament.

That will be done as soon as possible, which is as soon as the matters can be resolved with the UK Government. It is not, so far as I am concerned, impairing the work that we are doing at the moment; it is primarily designed to deal with the substantial corpus of additional work that would flow in the event of Brexit going ahead. I am sometimes not sure whether it will go ahead, because of the state of utter confusion that exists around it.

The reason why the bulk of the work lies ahead is the substantial volume of secondary legislation that would have to be dealt with in addition to the normal business. The substantial answer to the question of why we need extra people is that it is for dealing with the corpus of secondary legislation, which would be very substantial indeed. I can give some figures that we have at the moment on that. In addition, once it is possible to come up with clear plans—on the assumption that Brexit will go ahead—then additional officials will of course be required, as the NFU envisages, in order to shape the post-Brexit policy after the transition period is over.

Just to confirm: there will be no additional staff and no use of that resource in advance of Brexit, in the hope that it will not go ahead.

The matter has not yet been resolved with the UK Government because, as I said, the question of negotiating from a 2.5 per cent share to a reasonable share requires to be resolved.

Does the Scottish Government have that £37.2 million?

Mr Mackay is dealing with such matters. I am not dealing with the finance matters.

Peter Chapman has a follow-up question for the cabinet secretary that the minister might be able to shed light on as well.

Just to clarify, cabinet secretary, you say that £37 million has been allocated to the Scottish Government and that no extra staff have been recruited and no extra staff will be funded.

No. That assumes a number of things that are not correct. It was announced that there will be funding, but that does not mean that the funding has arrived. It is funding that will be received.

It is quite important to understand what the staff will do and are doing, because there are additional staff already in a number of directorates. Going from the bottom up, there are additional staff and local co-ordination mechanisms in environment, agriculture, forestry, economic policy, fisheries, health, justice and safer communities. There are staff in there, but the primary focus is on the legal issue of leaving the EU and therefore having to repatriate legislation. I will be bringing forward further information on that before the recess, I think. I will have the opportunity to put in place some detail to address how that is being done, particularly in terms of the secondary legislation.

There has also been a strengthening of staff elsewhere. We have strengthened our staff in trade and investment, for example, and have a new trade and investment unit in place. We have increased our senior presence in Brussels and in London, which was essential. The strategy and constitution unit and the directorate of external affairs have also been strengthened. There is therefore a strengthening across the board and in depth as well. However, Fergus Ewing makes a very important point about the resources for that. Until three months ago, we had no idea of any additional resource for it, but we now have an indication of a Barnettisation of the resource in certain areas.

Instead of allocating a proportionate share of the overall sum—I think that it is £1.5 billion, to be expanded to £3 billion—such as 10 per cent or whatever, the UK Government has gone down the route of Barnettisation by individual departments. In my view, that will not reflect the actual cost. We estimate that there will be between 300 and 500 additional items of secondary legislation. That does not come cheap and it will require a lot of input. We will also have to scrutinise the secondary legislation that comes from Westminster, which will be substantial.

A process is under way, but it is not helped by the fact that, below the top level, we do not know any of the detail. For example, on the trade issues, what will be the customs position? We do not know, and we are less than 10 months from when the final decision has to be made.

I have a question about another part of your portfolio, cabinet secretary, as it concerns the preparedness of Marine Scotland, particularly in relation to fisheries protection. Earlier this year, I wrote to your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, about marine protection vessels. They are not just for marine protected areas, but our MPAs are growing in number, with a further four as a result of the budget deals. I highlighted that the Welsh Government is building five additional vessels in Wales for fisheries protection. Do you believe that there is sufficient strength in the marine protection capability?

We have a huge coastline to cover, but Marine Scotland has been performing its functions extremely well. We are certainly very satisfied with the work that it does, but we keep under review the sufficiency and adequacy of the vessels that are available. I can write to the member on the matter. He has corresponded with Roseanna Cunningham, and I can look at that correspondence again if he feels that any matters have not been covered.

Ms Cunningham said that the matter was under review. I just wonder whether, given the initiative by the Welsh Government—of course, it has a considerably shorter coastline—and the potential additional burden, there is a pressing need for more vessels.

From the engagement that I have had with Marine Scotland’s officers in offices in ports and harbours in various parts of the country, I am extremely impressed by the work that they do. I am always a believer that quality is the important thing rather than mere quantity, and I have been struck by the knowledge that the marine protection officers have of the fishing world—of fishermen and fishing practices—and their commitment to work with the sector. I think that that is the most important thing, so I am not necessarily persuaded that we need to go out tomorrow and purchase a number of additional vessels without having checked what they would do, how much they would cost, which budget the money would come from and who would provide the extra cash. However, we keep things under review.

Good morning, panel. Minister, you mentioned the UK Brexit white paper in your opening statement. Will you tell us a little more about what you know about its current state, please?

Yes, although I have to say that you could probably get as much information from the newspapers as you will get from me, because I do not know much more than I read in the newspapers.

We first discovered that there was to be a white paper in press coverage. That was a week after we had agreed at the JMC (European Union negotiations) that there was to be a ministerial forum that would sit below the JMC(EN) and engage ministers with their counterparts in Whitehall on the issues of negotiation. Anyway, we put the lack of knowledge down to how these systems seem to operate at the present moment.

The first meeting of the ministerial forum, which took place in Edinburgh just under two weeks ago, was attended by two UK ministers, Chloe Smith and Robin Walker; by me; by Annabelle Ewing, because one of the subjects under discussion was justice and security; and by the Welsh housing minister, who is the deputy Brexit spokesperson. During that meeting, we were shown a list—unexpectedly, I have to say—and told that it was likely to be the contents list for the white paper, and we were asked, if we had views on any of the items on what was a pretty long list, to make those views known. That is not the best way to put a document together, but we thought that we would do that, and we have started work on it.

However, two days ago, we discovered from the Financial Times—and, apparently, it was confirmed by the UK Government—that the intention to publish the paper during June, which is what we were told was the intention, has been abandoned.

It seemed a strange intention anyway, because the paper was not to be for the June meeting of the European Council but was to lay out the UK Government’s position on a range of issues. If those could not be negotiated at the June Council, it seemed odd timing but, anyway, the paper will now be published at some other time. It could be the run-up to the October meeting of the European Council, which is becoming more of a focus. The June Council was the focus for progress. It is still important but, over the next few weeks, it will lessen in importance and the October Council will increase in importance.

We were also told that the paper was not yet drafted, so there was an opportunity to have input into it. However, we understand from coverage today that it is drafted but has not been shown to members of the Cabinet. That is in keeping with what we hear about a lot of documents: they exist but the Cabinet does not get to see them. I was told that I should not be too upset not to have seen the article 50 letter because the Cabinet did not see it either. Apparently, that is how things are done.

As far as we know, there is a document that may or may not end up as a white paper, but we have not seen the content of it. We will put information into the process, although I do not know what will happen to it.

So you have not had a chance to input into the paper, but hope to be able to do so. However, at the moment, you are not really sure whether you will be able to.

Well, we will go ahead in good faith and will give our views on the items on the content list, but I do not know whether it will make any difference or whether we might as well put the piece of paper in a bottle and throw it in the sea.

The cabinet secretary used the word “Armageddon”. The report in The Sunday Times uses the term “doomsday scenario” and says:

“Britain would be hit with shortages of medicine, fuel and food within a fortnight if the UK tries to leave the European Union without a deal”.

Is that officially in the white paper or is it something else that was drawn up separately?

I have no idea what is officially in the white paper, but the comment should not have been a surprise to anybody, because the separate parties that are quoted in the article have said it before. For example, I think that, in evidence to the Parliament’s Health and Sport Committee, Parkinson’s UK indicated a concern about the availability of medicines. I have heard from the pharmaceutical sector on many occasions that, because of the difficulties of leaving the European Medicines Agency, there will be issues of certification.

Sir Martin Donnelly, the former permanent secretary of the Department for International Trade, who has been to Scotland and met our standing council, has lectured on the flow of goods and has frequently pointed out that, in the massive bottleneck at Dover for food imports and exports, we have only to slow down the lorries by two minutes each and we will have a 70-mile queue. If we look at the effect of the beast from the east, when there was a shortage of milk and other produce in supermarkets, we see that the integration of the food supply chain is considerable. If we interrupt that in any way, we will have shortages. There is nothing new about that.

Minister, I am desperately trying not to interrupt you. I have a long list of questions that everyone wants to ask, so I would appreciate it if members could keep their questions, and you, cabinet secretary and minister, could keep your answers, as brief as possible.

My question is on policy frameworks for areas that are within the committee’s remit, such as agricultural support, animal health and welfare, food and feed safety, and hygiene laws. What are the priorities for Scotland in how those frameworks are negotiated and what the outcome is?

On how the frameworks are negotiated, we have had what are called deep dives on all those subjects, as we have had on all the 24 subjects with broad agreement that are left out of the list of 111. Those have been undertaken according to a set of priorities and principles that we published, which included ensuring that there was co-operation between the countries and that the devolution settlement was respected, as well as a range of other things that are in the public domain.

We could easily establish those frameworks tomorrow and would be happy to do so on the basis of agreement, not imposition. The delay to the matter is the delay to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. That is a Westminster issue. The timetable for it is set by Westminster, not us. If the UK Government gets its bill through and it wishes to sit down and discuss with us getting those frameworks in place, that will be fine. If it imposes those frameworks upon us within a rigid legislative structure, that will be harder to do because our freedom of action will be considerably less. However, our priority in setting the frameworks up is to make them effective and ensure that we all bring our concerns to the table and get work done on them.

10:30  

The policy outcomes will be a matter for the cabinet secretaries who have the policy portfolios; that is not a matter for me. The work has been done to ensure that things work. The deep dive process went from proof of concept—where we asked whether we could make this work—to an agreement that, provided that we did it on the basis of the four countries working together and equally, it could work.

I am sorry, convener—I know that you want to press on, but there is one issue that needs to be understood in this context. If there is a settlement of the Northern Ireland situation that leads to complete regulatory alignment between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, there will be huge implications for the agriculture framework, for example, because we would be endeavouring to set up a framework with Northern Ireland, as part of the relationship, when Northern Ireland was already in a relationship of full alignment with the EU. Therefore, unless the relationship with the other countries was one of full alignment, there would be a very strange process indeed. We are completely unable to get an answer to that conundrum from the UK Government—I have raised it on a number of occasions. Until there is resolution of the Northern Ireland situation, it is impossible to see how the frameworks would operate.

Notwithstanding all that, it is important to stress that in meetings between officials, a huge amount of work has been done in good faith on the areas that Kate Forbes mentioned and on other areas, in an attempt to be constructive and to explore the possibilities for frameworks in as many areas as we can co-operate on. However, the process has been hampered by a lack of clarity on the high-level information, as Michael Russell said.

I think that I am correct in saying that that relates to legislative frameworks. When it comes to the non-legislative frameworks that might need to be developed and agreed, what will the process be and how will you ensure that we can benefit from divergence, where that is required?

Because non-legislative frameworks would not be governed in the same way, I think that the process would operate in a better fashion. Non-legislative frameworks already exist in a number of areas. For example, there are arrangements on marine issues, which work pretty well on the basis of agreement. The non-legislative frameworks, which are the majority, should not cause huge concern here; it is the legislative frameworks and the straitjacket that might be put on for a long period that are problematic.

Of course, anything can become a legislative framework. It is important to recognise that, because one of the points of issue is the refusal to have a definitive list of issues on which there is a section 30 mechanism for approval. The UK Government is saying, “There is a list, and we think that that is it, but tomorrow we might discover something behind the sofa that we want to bring in, and we would just do that and there would be nothing that you could do about it.” That technically applies to areas that are non-legislative; they could become legislative without our being able to do anything about it.

I want to ask about Scottish agricultural policy after we leave the European Union and the common agricultural policy. Fergus Ewing has argued that the lack of clarity from the UK Government on policy, funding, labour availability and trade agreements makes the formulation of a meaningful strategy impossible.

However, it is nearly two years since the vote to leave the EU. Cabinet secretary, you have known for nearly two years that it would be your responsibility to design the new, bespoke system of agricultural support for Scotland. Have you done nothing in that regard for the past two years, because you think that it is not possible? Should you have been doing something over the past two years? If you have been doing something, as I hope is the case, when will we know what your plans are?

We covered this territory in my statement to the chamber yesterday. Let me begin by saying, with respect, that I do not accept your various premises. We have been carrying out a great deal of work, much of which is directed at looking at post-Brexit approaches.

Yesterday, I mentioned two pieces of work, in particular, that we have done. First, we appointed agriculture champions; I announced their final report yesterday, and I have it here. Their recommendations are excellent and we will respond to them in detail in due course. The agriculture champions’ work was shaped around providing advice on the future of agriculture, not dealing with the consequences of Brexit, although I think that the recommendations apply across the board. Their work is in alignment with my thoughts, which I have set out. I know that Mr Rumbles says that we have not done anything but, with respect, I do not accept that premise.

We have made it absolutely clear that in Scotland, we think that farmers perform twin roles. They are producers of food and they are custodians of the environment. Increasingly, I am getting signals from people who are not involved in politics at all that they are alarmed about the direction that Mr Gove is taking because there does not seem to be due emphasis on the role of farmers as producers of food.

That is a particular concern now because there is increasing concern about the security of supply of food, particularly with the types of possible scenarios—the Armageddon scenario and so on. If there are interruptions to or breakages of supplies because trade agreements are breached, or because most-favoured nation status applies to the setting of tariffs and the tariffs could become enormous without that status, there could be a number of extremely serious challenges to food security.

I have set out in principle, very clearly, that the Scottish Government believes that the farmers have those twin roles. Chapter 2 of the agriculture champions’ final report sets out a large number of recommendations. We will respond in detail in due course.

There is a particular need to put an emphasis on new entrants. We need to bring more people, especially young people, into farming. I am pleased that in Scotland we have done more on that, through financial support, than has been done elsewhere in the UK.

The agriculture champions have set out a large number of serious recommendations. My view is that it is always correct for ministers not to set the agenda without first having a detailed engagement with stakeholders. We have done that and expert stakeholders have set out their views.

Of course, the other response to Mr Rumbles is that, at the behest of the Parliament—indeed, in terms of the amendment that he himself drafted—we appointed a National Council of Rural Advisers. He lodged that amendment, Parliament agreed to it, and we appointed the NCRA. The NCRA is producing a discussion paper shortly and it will produce its final report in a few months. It is absolutely correct that we listen to people—that we listen to the experts and come up with a policy thereafter.

Lastly, this is a complex topic, convener, and no doubt we will explore other aspects of it—

Cabinet secretary, I am sorry, but—

It is a very complex topic—

I know that it is a very complex topic, but six members of the committee want to ask questions about it. I am sure that you will be able to work in your point in your answer to one of those six people when they ask their questions. With the greatest respect, I would like to go back to Mike Rumbles so that he can ask the next part of his question and then I will bring in other members of the committee.

The cabinet secretary is quite right—it was my amendment that the Parliament voted on unanimously. It called for the Government to get “relevant stakeholders” round a table to produce advice for the Government so that it could produce a plan for the future.

Relevant stakeholders, in my view—I assumed that it was the cabinet secretary’s view as well—are not just the producers, but the consumer organisations and the environmental organisations. In my discussions with those organisations, they tell me that they have not had that engagement with you. You have consulted the agriculture champions and the advisers on the NCRA, but they are all from the producer organisations. If we are going to get a successful new system for Scotland, with buy-in from consumers, environmental organisations and producers, all those stakeholders need to get round the table with you to produce that plan so that we can engage with the rest of the UK. How can you go into negotiations with the rest of the UK on frameworks when you have not come up with a plan yourself?

I am very sorry, but that premise is simply wrong. Mr Rumbles says that I have not engaged with a variety of stakeholders such as consumers and environmental organisations; I have had a range of engagement over a period as cabinet secretary. The record of that engagement is there—I can write to Mr Rumbles about that if this is any more than a debating point. I assure Mr Rumbles that it is important to me to engage with a range of stakeholders and I do so, day and daily. I have been involved in a number of major events apart from engaging with the NCRA, so I do not accept that premise.

I ran a business, as other members here have done, before coming to Parliament, and I spent 20 years doing so. To run a business, you need to have a plan, you need certainty about what you are aiming to achieve in terms of income and costs, and you need to be sure that you can retain your staff. The difficulty that we have at the moment is that we do not know whether we are going to be in the single market or in the customs union, whether there will be tariff-free trade, or whether people from Poland and the rest of the EU will continue to be made welcome in Scotland—although we are very clear about that—so we do not know how much our costs are going to go up or how much our income is going to go down, and we do not know whether our staff will be around for much longer. Those three matters are pillars of running a business, and I am afraid that unless or until the high-level detail of a Brexit plan is solved, the question remains: how can you have a business plan with no figures? Can anyone from the Opposition parties explain that to me? I have been waiting for a while for an explanation.

I ask everyone to remain focused on and targeted in answering the questions, and I want the questions to be short. I am finding it difficult, because we are a long way through this session and we are not getting through the questions that everyone has the right to get answers to.

I am astonished. We are hearing the same story again, with a wringing of hands. It is far too little, far too late. You said that farmers are alarmed by what Mr Gove is saying, cabinet secretary. I can tell you that farmers are alarmed by the lack of anything that you are saying. I do not accept that you have no clarity. I know that you do not have clarity on everything, and I accept that lots of difficult discussions need to be had, but the one part that you can play is to design a system of support for Scottish agriculture that suits Scottish agriculture. Mr Gove has been quite clear that that responsibility lies at your door and at the door of the Scottish Government—you are the man responsible for producing that document. When is that document going to appear in order to give farmers some security in respect of what we are doing post Brexit with support mechanisms for Scottish agriculture?

I fully accept that farmers and land managers are seeking certainty and clarity, but I respectfully point out that it is simply not possible to get that until we know whether there is to be a Brexit and, if so, whether we will be in the single market or will remain in the customs union, whether our lambs will still be available for export to Europe and whether the people who work in berry picking will still be able to do those jobs. It is simply not possible to devise a plan until the high-level matters are resolved. I fully accept that, at such time as those matters are resolved, it then becomes my responsibility, but it would be helpful if all members across all parties could reaffirm their support for the convergence review, because that will have a major influence on the amount of money available—

Cabinet secretary, we will come on to the convergence review in due course, so you will get your chance to comment on that.

It is all relevant, convener.

I am sorry, cabinet secretary, but you always appear to have an answer when I make a polite suggestion to you. I want to move on to the next question, which is from Colin Smyth.

The cabinet secretary must accept that there is frustration among Scotland’s farmers, not just about the challenges and the lack of information coming from the UK Government but about what they perceive to be the failure of the Scottish Government to set out, at the very least, the core principles behind your vision for the future of Scottish agriculture and what the support mechanism should look like. The NFUS has set out such principles in “Steps To Change: A New Agricultural Policy For Scotland”, but you are saying that it is impossible to do that because you do not have the full details that are required for a business plan. Why is the NFUS able to do it? Why are other organisations, such as Scottish Environment LINK, able to set out the core principles of what future support for Scottish agriculture should look like? When will you set out those core principles, at the very least?

I see from the timeline that you will make a further statement in Parliament on Tuesday, on the back of the paper from the national council of rural advisers. Will that be a statement on the detailed report from the NCRA? What exactly is your timeline for setting out the basic principles behind what future support should look like and for making that case to the UK Government?

With respect, I set out clear principles earlier and made it clear that, in Scotland, continued support is necessary for food production, for example. That was not clearly enunciated by Mr Gove in his paper, which is very alarming. I do not accept that we have not set out clear principles.

10:45  

We now have the benefit of an excellent report from the agriculture champions—members might wish to study it—which points the way ahead in many respects. It is important to listen to experts who are not involved in the political realm, which is exactly what we shall do.

I want to be able to offer the best possible array of support to rural Scotland. Next year, Scotland is expected to receive a direct payment of €128 per hectare in financial support. The UK as a whole will receive an average of €225 per hectare and Italy will receive €363 per hectare so, next year, Scotland will receive the lowest rate in the EU.

I assume that all members will want to get the best deal for Scotland. That is one of the two reasons why the convergence review will directly impact on how we are able to deliver for Scottish farmers. What size will the cake be? Some members might just want half a cake, but I do not agree with that and I will argue for the whole cake.

The convergence review was promised by Mr Gove. It would be heartening if the convener and other members were to confirm that the committee will call on Mr Gove to obtemper his promise and set up the review as agreed last year. That directly impacts on the answers to Mr Rumbles’s and Mr Smyth’s questions. If we do not have that review, we will be at the bottom of the pile. We receive the lowest level of support in the EU and I, for one, do not think that that is acceptable.

Cabinet secretary, that is twice that you have mentioned the convergence review, but I want to focus on other questions. I have a question on the agriculture champions report, which you mentioned and which I have read in some detail. Please turn to recommendation 17, which says:

“It must be accepted that some farm businesses won’t survive even if current policies were to remain.”

What planning have you done to help the farm businesses that will not survive in their current format to move on after Brexit and engage in other businesses if farming is not for them?

We will consider all aspects of the report’s recommendations and respond formally in due course.

On the question that the convener asked, we provide a range of support, which we focus on the farmers who need it most. Alone in the UK, the Scottish Government has continued with the less favoured area support scheme. As members will know, 85 per cent of Scottish land is considered less favoured under LFASS. That is precisely why we wish to maintain the scheme and why, when it was established last year that we could maintain it at 100 per cent, we altered our plans, which had been based on moving to 80 per cent, in order to return to 100 per cent. It is also why we provide a range of assistance, such as the crofting agricultural grant scheme, support for new entrants from Scotland’s Rural College and other existing support that is targeted at those who need it most.

One of the recommendations in the agriculture champions’ report, which I am in favour of in principle, is that we should continue with the cap on the maximum support that will be available and direct the money that would be saved to areas of greater need. If we are being candid and truthful, we would accept that Governments are not responsible for—and cannot accept implied responsibility for—the survival of every single business. However, this Government cannot be readily faulted on its range of options and support, especially in the Highlands and southern uplands and in areas where the land quality is poor and it is therefore more difficult to make a substantial profit and a living.

I accept your point that that has been a help in the past, but I was looking for answers about potential help in the future. I guess that I will have to wait for them.

I was happy to answer that.

Cabinet secretary, your views and those of your colleague, Mr Russell, on Brexit are pretty well known in the Scottish Parliament, and your views on the Conservative Government at Westminster are no great secret to any of us, either. Notwithstanding your personal political views on either of those matters, do you feel a sense of responsibility and duty as the cabinet secretary for the rural economy in Scotland to now develop a policy on a post-CAP subsidy system for Scotland? If it is not your job to do that, whose job is it? If now is not the time to do that, when is the time?

In order to provide a clear policy on a system of financial support, a budget is needed. If there is no budget, it is not possible to do anything other than theorise on a number of scenarios. There will be different plans if the budget is £25, £50, £100, £1,000 or £1 million. That is a statement of the obvious.

Of course we are developing a policy. That is why we have reached out to the NCRA and why we have implemented the spirit and the letter of the motion that was passed in Parliament. Parliament asked us to do that. That is the process for developing policy. That process does not just involve my sitting in St Andrew’s house with a blank piece of paper in front of me; it involves reaching out to stakeholders and getting their views. We are doing that, and I welcome that, but I am surprised that there does not seem to be universal accord on that.

I can confirm that we are in the process of developing our approach. I accept, of course, that once—or if—we get to a solution on Brexit, at that point my responsibility will kick in to get on with it, and I assure members that that is what will happen.

With the greatest respect, cabinet secretary—

Hold on. Jamie Greene can come in with a quick follow-up question before John Mason comes in. I know that people are finding some of the discussion frustrating and that they want to make comments, but it is fair and respectful to listen to the answers and then ask questions. It is also fair and respectful to people who are answering the questions to go through the chair and address questions to me, and to try to listen to me as I manage the meeting. I am not trying to shape the meeting; I am trying to give everyone the opportunity to come in, and I am finding that quite difficult at the moment. I ask the cabinet secretary to give his answers through the chair.

With the greatest respect, cabinet secretary, people will be watching this evidence session with a huge sense of frustration. In response to specific questions about when a policy will be produced and what it might look like, all that we are met with from you are repeated answers of uncertainty. It is said that there are too many unknowns at the moment. Surely you have a wonderful team of civil servants, some of whom are sitting around the table next to you. Is work taking place in your directorate to develop the potential shape of those policies and frameworks, notwithstanding the financial settlement at the end of the process? Your answering questions by saying that there are too many unknowns is simply not good enough for Scottish farmers.

Of course work of that nature is going on and officials are working on potential options but, until we have clarity, it is not possible to come forward with a clear plan. The argument is circular. I have been asked the same question for several weeks, and I very much look forward to an opportunity for me to deliver that clarity. However, I am determined to continue to provide support to our hill farmers, our livestock sector, our arable farmers, our land managers, our forestry sector and the environmental schemes.

I will put the matter to members in a straightforward way. If someone is planning now to have a 40-hectare forestry plantation, it is not at all clear where the funding will come from after next March. What sort of plan can I come forward with other than one that says, “Well, we’ll give you the money if it’s available.”?

 

If you were the investor, would you then go ahead with your plans? Would you spend the money on advisers if a Government said “Well, go ahead with the plan, but we may not actually have the money to pay for it.”? That is the situation that we are in at the moment—notwithstanding the limited assurance that we have in relation to farm support. From the point of view of anybody who has run a business, that position is a complete non-starter. That is not the way that investment works; it works with clarity and certainty. That is needed first, then the business plan follows.

I will continue the same line of questioning. Cabinet secretary, are you saying that it is not possible to set out policies quite distinctly from the money and say “These are my priorities A, B, C and D, and it doesn’t matter whether we get £60 or €60 a hectare or £120, £300 or whatever it is—we’ll just slot that in later.”? Alternatively, are you saying that the amount of money that we get is crucial and that the priorities might vary, or the relationship between the priorities might vary, depending on the amount of money that we have?

Without certainty, or something very close to it, about the amount of funding available in total—broadly speaking, it is £500 million per annum for rural development as a whole, including agriculture—it is simply not possible to produce a plan that has any real substance or meaning to it. The paper that Mr Gove has put forward is an interesting one, but it is not clear what it will mean for any farmer. Although it is an interesting read, it does not actually provide a plan. We could not call it a plan; it is a series of ideas or proposals. Similarly, I thought that the NFU’s proposals were a good read, covered a lot of good ground and offered good ideas. However, a farmer reading it would think “Well, that’s all very well, but what about me?” For a farmer getting, say, £10,000 support, neither of those documents can possibly give any real clarity from the point of view of his running a farming business.

I agree that the public good should play a part and I also agree that paying people simply for the amount of land that they hold does not actually incentivise either productivity or environmental best practice. It is quite easy to reach agreement on what is wrong with the current system and it is quite easy to set out a series of general statements. We have done that—I can point to various documents where we have done that very clearly—but a plan is entirely different. A plan provides clarity and certainty to individual people who are directly affected and whose families and businesses are directly affected.

However, having said all that, I can assure this committee, as I said in answer to Mr Greene a moment ago, that my officials are working with me on those general policy matters. I can also assure those who might be listening to this discussion that we are working very hard in this preparatory stage in order to ensure that, when we have sufficient clarity, we will be able to move forward swiftly on post-Brexit options.

Cabinet secretary, how are you going to tell farmers what they will get if you do not know what Scotland will get? If you promise something now in a plan that you cannot deliver, what will farmers think of you then?

They will think that I should resign.

Exactly.

And I probably should. That is why it is really a bit silly for members to ask that we produce a plan with figures when there are none. I have not come across anything in 18 years in the Parliament that seems to me to be such an absurd proposition, but there we are.

Cabinet secretary, yesterday in the chamber you accused the Conservatives of playing political games. I suggest that you are doing exactly that and that you want Brexit to fail so that you can blame Westminster again. I am reflecting the feeling in the countryside that this Scottish National Party Government is prepared to sacrifice agriculture on the altar of a second independence referendum. [Interruption.]

Hold on, please, everyone. I deliberately asked for questions, but Mr Chapman made a statement. I am afraid that, given that he made that statement, I am going to move straight to the next question, which is from Mr Rumbles.

It is about what the frustration generally comes from. None of us wanted to leave the European Union, but we are leaving. We have been constrained by the rules of the EU, and we now have an opportunity to design a system for Scotland, which I had thought the minister would be the first to grasp. Although farmers accept that you cannot tell them explicitly how much they would get for what, what they—and we—want to hear is your vision for the future of farm support in Scotland.

11:00  

I fully understand that there is a great deal of frustration in the farming community at the moment. I spend a lot of time visiting farms, as often as the parliamentary process permits me. I speak to farmers and I listen to what they have to say, and I attend various important events and meetings, as is right and proper. Therefore, I understand their frustration.

Also, incidentally, I am acutely aware of the difficulties that farmers have faced over the past winter. It was a very long winter with extended bad weather—snow, rain and rain on snow—fallen stock and huge numbers of lambs lost through hypothermia. As well as the financial effects of that, the emotional and human effects are very substantial. That is why we responded with the fallen stock scheme.

Cabinet secretary, I am going to stop you there, because that is so far off the question. The committee has asked the question on numerous occasions—I have recorded seven or eight times when a similar question has been asked and we have had a similar answer. We are now on to a fallen stock scheme, which is not to do with the original question. I will move on from that question, which seems—in good agricultural terms—to be stuck in a rut. Kate Forbes has the next question.

I have a few questions about the UK agricultural and fisheries bills, starting with fisheries. Have detailed negotiations on the frameworks of fisheries management started yet, and what input have you had to the UK bill on fisheries?

As I said at the outset, I have had four meetings with UK ministers since November and I had several before that. We have asked for clarity on the fisheries bill but we have not been given it, which is disappointing. We have no clarity at all about what the UK Government is proposing. We have set out our clear view that fisheries is a devolved matter, that it should remain fully devolved and that power in respect of all matters that currently rest with the EU should, therefore, come to Scotland so that we can exercise them here.

That said, I have a good and workmanlike relationship with George Eustice, having worked with him at the December negotiations for the past two years, and I think that there are common elements. We believe that the principles of a fisheries policy should be that we should not exceed a maximum sustainable yield—we do not want to overfish. We want to stop the discard practice that so concerns the public and which is also an enormous waste of resource, we want a thriving and successful fishing community, and we want Scotland to exit the common fisheries policy, which has good aims but has not really worked out in practice and has been disastrous in many respects.

I stress that there is commonality in some areas. However, the principal concern lies with the recent revelation that, far from Brexit leading to the “sea of opportunity” on the day after exit, there is now going to be a prolonged period during which we will not only be in the CFP but will have no voice at the table. We will be locked out of the negotiations for one of the years, as I understand it—Mr Russell can correct me if I am wrong—which really is the worst possible scenario to be in.

The minister is itching to get in.

I thought that I should earn a crust.

Can I cite a previous answer?

Yes—and then I will give the minister the chance to answer.

The minister has previously said that the current arrangements for fisheries essentially operate collaboratively and that it is of concern that we do not know whether the fisheries bill will include a new set of legislative frameworks or seek to continue in that informal way.

Yes. It has been very difficult to get a handle on when bills are due to appear. The immigration bill, which will impact on some of the issues that we are discussing, was first due in 2017, then it was due to be published at Easter, and now it might be published in the autumn. We expected the fisheries and agriculture bills at the beginning of the year, but we have not seen them. We have also still not seen the customs bill.

In the context of our discussion this morning, it is also fair to say that the UK Government’s overall vision for Brexit, which we presume is to be articulated in the white paper, has not appeared yet. The committee might want to note that. However, from intentions for the white paper, it looks as though the UK Government will make a distinction between agricultural food and fisheries products, which fits into the goods and economic partnership theme, alongside an item that sits on its own called “fishing opportunities”, which we understand to mean access to waters.

We are seeing a twin-track approach being taken in legislation on a framework for fisheries, much of which has operated on a voluntary basis up to now. Other issues will be taken care of in different ways, including by the trading relationship, which will be very important. For my constituents, the key issue is getting goods to market. We do not know what the customs arrangements will be, so it is impossible to say how that will happen. There is also the vexed question of access to waters.

Have detailed negotiations on the frameworks for agricultural support started yet? I ask that particularly in the light of there being a disproportionately high number of less favoured areas in Scotland?

The negotiating timetable is not clear. It features as an item that will be considered by the ministerial forum—the item that tries to relate the interests of the devolved nations with the formal process of negotiation. I would expect the cabinet secretary to be engaged with me in the ministerial forum in discussing that in July or August, in respect of input to the negotiating process. However, we do not have a date for that; we do not have sequencing for the negotiations. We are unlikely to see that sequencing until we know what happens at the June council—although, of course, the June council might not produce a result.

It really is important to stress the uncertainty. I am having to answer every question by saying, “This may happen or that may happen”, responsibility for which lies firmly at the door of the UK Government.

Okay. The next question is from Jamie Greene.

The cabinet secretary mentioned the situation around the report from Michael Gove called “Health and Harmony: the future for food, farming and the environment in a Green Brexit”. What analysis have you done of that document? Are elements of it suitable for or relevant to Scotland? Is your policy direction similar to or different from the contents of the report?

The report was an interesting read—I will say that for it. Where we differ is that my vision for the future of rural Scotland is of our farmers producing high-quality food, continuing to look after the landscape and, in so doing, improving their environmental practice in respect of, for example, soil quality and drainage. We also seek to improve productivity and efficiency and to bring more young people into the countryside.

It seems to me—this is my view, but it is also the view of many stakeholders to whom I have spoken recently—that Mr Gove’s focus is more on environmental matters. He seems to be proposing that financial support for food production should either cease or be massively curtailed. That would be a grave problem, which I say having this week announced financial support for ABP Food Group—the meat processor in Perth—which supports 1,600 farmers.

In our livestock sector, cattle numbers have been going down—as the convener will know—for about 30 years, as have sheep numbers. If that decline is not arrested, there will come a point at which the livestock sector’s ability to support the processing sector—abattoirs and so on—will be called into question. We have already seen abattoirs with lower throughputs closing in Orkney, Dunblane and elsewhere. Incidentally, I note the practical matter that abattoirs are highly dependent on EU labour: the figure is over 90 per cent, I think.

I do not wish to be unfair to Mr Gove; he is an extremely courteous man and we have had good engagement in courteous, interesting and relevant exchanges. However, the difference between us is, as I understand it, that I am concerned that we also need to focus on food production. The public conceive of farmers as producing food, so as long as farmers continue to do that and to do it well, the public will be happy with continuing financial support for farmers. I think that were that conception to cease, which seems to be the direction of travel down south, that might change.

Thank you for your feedback on the document. I am sure that your comments will be noted.

It is expected that we will, after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019, move into an implementation or transition period, the length of which is still to be determined. The UK Government has given a commitment to farmers in England that there will be a transition from the current status quo of CAP to the new system of agriculture support, whatever it might be. Have you given thought to the transition period in Scotland and a move to a new system—whatever it will be: we have laboured that point tremendously this morning—and to what will happen in 10 months in relation to payments until 2022 and beyond?

We have given a great deal of thought to that. I assure members that we have considered the matter in detail, as is right. There are two stages: the stage immediately after Brexit day until the end of the transition, and the full monty Brexit—or whatever we want to call it—after the transition period ends.

My view is that, in principle, it is desirable that during the transition—in other words, the period prior to adoption of a post-Brexit new rural policy for Scotland—we have as much stability and certainty as possible. We will try to reintroduce stability and certainty. That key objective is the correct one to set in establishing a transition policy. I say that because there is so much uncertainty at the moment. If it is possible, in a transition scheme, to dispel that uncertainty as far as we can within our powers, it is correct that we do so—and that we do so relatively soon.

Is it your vision that the transition period should move us gently to the situation beyond, by trialling all the systems that will be in place post-transition and by enabling and encouraging businesses to move to the situation in which they will find themselves after the transition period?

I agree with the general thrust of that. The champions recommended a transition period of three to five years, and then a 10 to 15-year strategy. They said that change is essential: I think that they are correct. We need a longer transition period than the UK Government has proposed, because it will take longer than that, first to shape, design and consult on a new scheme and then to prepare and implement it. Of course, we will need IT systems to do some of that: I am in a good position to know that such things need to be done well.

There must be change in the post-Brexit policy, and it is essential that there is sufficient time to prepare for that change. Over that period, we should trial new policies. Whether we do so on a pilot or demonstration basis, or on a universal basis is a matter for debate, but we should use the transition to bring stability and certainty and to try out ideas—for example, on new entrants, given that there is, I think, a desire across the political parties to see what more we can do to bring new blood into farming and into rural Scotland.

Given that nothing has been agreed yet and we are heading towards Brexit day, do you have concerns about the impact of Brexit on products such as Scotch whisky, Scottish farmed salmon, Orkney cheddar and Stornoway black pudding? Will such products continue to be protected under the EU protected food name scheme?

11:15  

Protected geographical indications are a very important issue—one of many that are unresolved in the negotiating process—that will have to be resolved in the next six months. The EU27’s concern is that the whole European programme of protected geographical indications could be undermined, because equivalences could be drawn, so they are keen to see the indications for products from these islands established in law. We support any action to make sure that they are enshrined in law that would run parallel with or keep pace with European law, so that they form a bulwark of preservation rather than being undermined. That could happen very quickly; the moment that Scotch whisky could be imitated elsewhere, people would get away with it. The issue is central among our concerns, but there are—as I said—no proposals from the UK Government, as yet.

The Scotch whisky industry and others have called for the establishment of a formal permanent trade policy stakeholder advisory network to advise the Government on trade negotiations. It would comprise experts on trade policy led by the UK Government Department for International Trade and involving other UK departments and devolved Administrations. Do you support that call? If so, what are you doing to make it happen, so that the sector is involved heavily in negotiation of those vital trade deals?

What has been called for does not go nearly far enough. I have supported it as far as it goes, and had a conversation about it with the Scotch Whisky Association—in this room, I think—not long ago. It is not just about our making comments on the negotiations. For the Canadian treaty, the EU insisted that the Canadian provinces were involved in the negotiation because they would have to deliver within their competences on some issues. We will have to deliver within our competences on some trading treaty issues, so we should be partners in the negotiation and implementation of treaties. That is the right way to do it, which would be much more productive in the context of the single market and the customs union, which the Scotch Whisky Association has not yet come to.

I will try to be very focused in this question, which is about the two halves of the fishing industry—catching and processing. If the industry was pro-rated to the UK, it would probably be an £8.5 billion industry. For Scotland, it is a bit over £1 billion, so it is important economically and extremely important locally. With regard to reciprocal access to fishing waters, about which UK ministers have visited the Dutch and the Danes to assure them that it will all be okay after Brexit day, what information do you have about access to 100 per cent of the fishing opportunities—the “sea of opportunity” that I was happy to bring to Parliament to debate—and whether negotiations are progressing in the way that was promised in the 2017 UK general election to my constituents and the fish catchers?

That was a very short question. Who would like to have a go at that?

Sadly, we have had no clarity on that. I heard the Prime Minister say that the aim is to “take control”, which is absolutely correct. However, we do not know quite what that means. We have asked to be involved in the negotiations, at least as a partner—particularly because Scotland catches the majority of the fish by value—but we have not had agreement to that proposal. On several occasions, I have asked Mr Eustice and Mr Gove, and Mrs Leadsom before Mr Gove’s appointment, for confirmation that access rights will not be traded away permanently as part of quid pro quo in an EU deal, perhaps over access to the single market. Sadly, I have had no answer to that. Obviously, we need to press on the issue: I do not need to tell Mr Stevenson that our fishermen in the offshore sector voted for Brexit in the belief that they would have access not to 40 per cent but to all of the fish in the 200-mile limit.

We can disaggregate taking control into two parts, one of which relates to who catches. Have you had any indication that, whoever is doing the catching, we will have the responsibility for determining the regime within which they operate? At the moment, the jurisdiction from which a vessel has its licence is responsible for how it catches. My constituents are particularly frustrated when we close a fishing area, such as the hole off Peterhead where spawning takes place, which stops our fishermen but it does not stop foreigners. Will that change?

Those are absolutely vital matters, as Mr Stevenson says. We believe that those powers should be vested in Scotland. We have excellent officials who are well respected across Europe and who are playing a major part, working with UK officials, but at the moment we do not have sufficient powers. That is because the pre-Brexit concordat that has been agreed has not been signed off by the UK Government. That is important, because it means that we cannot provide the fishermen with the decisions that they are looking for in respect of licences and quota allocation.

If there is a greater catching opportunity post-Brexit, as I assume there must be, that will allow us more opportunities—for example, to assign some of the additional catch as quotas to enable new entrants to come in. That is an opportunity that I have, I say to be fair, discussed with Mr Eustice. There is commonality on there being an opportunity that we should grasp. However, we have not yet agreed the pre-Brexit passage of the concordat, which I am afraid is restricting what we can do to assist Mr Stevenson’s constituents on day-to-day matters about licences and quotas.

I will move on to processing, because the convener is anxious that we make progress. Fishing gets 10 minutes, but agriculture got more than an hour.

I note that 24 languages are spoken in Peterhead academy and that 20 languages are spoken in Fraserburgh academy. We know that staff in our processing industry, which is larger than the catching industry, is a significant issue. Has the minister had any assurances in that regard?

I will just roll that up with the other half of my question. Given that fresh fish, in particular shellfish, are absolutely critical in getting the high value that can be realised in markets such as Boulogne-sur-Mer and elsewhere, have we had assurances of friction-free access for that important part of our food and drink industry?

I will take the latter part of the question first. Mr Stevenson is absolutely right that shellfish needs to get to market. Plainly, it is transported in conditions that keep it as fresh as possible. Therefore, the prospect of the UK becoming a third country and there being border inspection posts brings the concomitant risk of substantial delay. Delay is anathema for the shellfish industry, which exports to countries including Spain in huge quantities from ports in Mallaig and the northern isles. That is a very practical matter.

On the workforce, having visited Peterhead and Fraserburgh on many occasions and having spoken to the Peterhead harbour trustees at the recent event called “Skipper Expo International Aberdeen 2018”, which I formally opened, I am acutely aware of the importance of EU labour in the onshore and offshore sectors. I am also aware that the continuation of funding from the European maritime and fisheries fund is important for ports and harbours and for processors throughout our country. Although we know that there is to be a shared prosperity fund, we have no idea what it will be and we do not know whether it will cover the more than €100 million that we have received in the preceding period in EMFF assistance, which has been an enormous help to the sector. I am afraid to say that there are lingering uncertainties that affect the fishing sector as much as the farming sector.

I note for the record that, yesterday morning at 10 o’clock, the committee was sent “Economic Impacts of Scenarios for Scottish and UK Seafood Industries Post EU Exit”, which is summarised in a policy brief of 10 pages, with supporting documents that run to 101 pages. That was quite late for that to be received, just before a committee meeting. Stewart Stevenson has asked for more time to be given to fisheries, and I am sure that we will be able to find time for that in another meeting.

I thank the cabinet secretary and the minister for their time. I also thank Ian Davidson, Ian Mitchell and John Brownlee for attending.

I suspend the meeting for no more than five minutes to allow a change of witnesses.

11:25 Meeting suspended.  

11:31 On resuming—