I welcome to the third meeting of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee in session 6. Before we begin, I remind all members to turn any electronic devices to silent. Our first item of business is to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands on her priorities within the remit for session 6. I welcome Mari Gougeon, cabinet secretary and our supporting officers. I would like to put on record a disappointment that you are not with us in person, cabinet secretary, given the explicit desire of the committee, that cabinet secretaries and ministers appear in person, so it is disappointing given the nature of this session that you are not with us today. I just want to put that on record, and hopefully in the future we can accommodate you and your officials in the committee rooms in front of us. I welcome the cabinet secretary and, with her, George Burgess, the deputy director of food and drink, John Kerr, head of agriculture policy division and Carol Cowan, deputy director of funding and strategy for Mearing Scotland. I invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement and then we will go to questions. I am sorry that I cannot be with you today, and thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence to the committee. I am sure that it will not be my last appearance, and I am delighted to set out the Scottish Government's stall and our priorities for rural affairs and islands over the course of this parliamentary session. First of all, I am proud and feel really humble to have been asked by the First Minister to lead on this important portfolio, because there are exciting times ahead. There are huge challenges, but there are also significant opportunities, too. I have the honour of leading one of this Government's single biggest areas of reform and revitalisation over the course of the next four years, while aligning key rural sectors with wider national priorities. I am determined for Scotland's rural and island areas and industries to play their part in contributing to our net zero ambitions and in enhancing biodiversity. I also want rural and island economies and communities to benefit from those priorities, too, for there to be more inclusive growth, for green skills to create career opportunities and for fair workforce principles to be applied. I want Scotland to realise the undoubted immense potential that rural Scotland has and to create sustainability for those areas in that process. Key to that is enabling and empowering communities to be in charge of their own destinies, contributing their knowledge, skills and turning ideas into action. I want to see communities in charge of the changes that they want to see locally across rural Scotland. That is why I am pleased to announce today the launch of the rural communities ideas into action fund. That will open for applications of up to £50,000 from not-for-profit community groups from 13 September. Through that, we will be looking for projects that demonstrate that they advance greater inclusion, equality and diversity in local communities. Projects will also need to show how they will support other priorities such as net zero ambitions and be community-led. When it comes to what else we will be reforming and revitalising in the coming year, work is already under way to create a new system of rural support. The newly formed Agriculture Reform Implementation Oversight Board, which I will co-chair with Martin Kennedy, the president of the NFUS, meets for the first time on Monday. By November, the board will have agreed a national test programme and we will have started to recruit farmers and crofters to take part in that programme. The board's core premise is to take forward the recommendations of the farmer-led groups, as set out in our manifesto. We also will consult on a new agriculture bill, setting out our vision for this new rural support system, while also ensuring our future policy stays broadly aligned with the EU. We will continue to modernise tenant farming, as well as modernising small land holding legislation, and we will also seek to double the amount of land used for organic farming by 2026. As part of the wider reform agenda, we will start work to determine how best to support new and young entrants into farming, and by the end of this parliamentary session, we will have doubled annual support for women in agriculture to develop their skills. I am also determined to ensure that we maintain the highest possible welfare standards for all animals. We will work in partnership with other Administrations across the islands, where that is in everyone's best interests to do so, while also meeting Scotland's specific interests. We will review animal welfare legislation to improve animal transport legislation, and we will also act to lead on improving measures to work. We will begin to phase out cage laying hens and farrowing crates for pigs, and to review the current honey bee health strategy. We also need the right mix of professionals to care for our animals, and that is why we will progress the commitment to create a new Scottish veterinary service. The provision of vets and other animal health professionals right across farming, as well as in our food and drink industry, is one of the areas where Brexit has had a negative impact and shown how vulnerable we are in terms of having the right people with the right skills in the right places. That is why we are undertaking a route and branch review of land-based education with an independent commission already appointed. However, the fact remains that no matter what we do to reform or revitalise today at Fairer and Greener rural Scotland, our efforts will be hindered by the UK Government's reckless decision to pursue a hard Brexit during the pandemic. We warned of the consequences, and they are now being experienced due to the loss of freedom of movement and free trade. Worse than that, the UK Government is intent on short changing us in Scotland yet again by failing to replace lost EU funding in full, which is the latest in the litany of broken Brexit promises. Time and again, our interests have been ignored, but throughout all that, rural industries and the people who work in them have shown their resilience, innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. I do not think that that is more evident anywhere than in our vibrant food and drink sector. As we celebrate Scotland's food and drink fortnight, we will also begin a series of actions to provide the sector with more support to help it to grow sustainably. We will introduce a new good food nation bill and reinstate the ministerial working group on food. We are consulting on a draft local food strategy and working closely with industry and stakeholders in delivering the food and drink sector recovery plan. On seafood by the end of the year, we will set out our new blue economy vision, recognising the interconnections between social, economic and environmental incomes when managing our marine assets. We will publish a new strategy for seafood next year and continue to support an aquaculture industry that is sustainable, diverse, competitive and economically viable. The independent review of fish farming regulation is already underway and will act on its recommendations by the end of the year. In 2022, we will lead in developing a new vision for aquaculture. We will take forward the future fisheries management strategy, publishing a future catching policy and rolling out remote electronic monitoring to key parts of the fishing fleet. I am particularly pleased to have been appointed the cabinet secretary for Scotland's islands. We have a range of ambitious and novel policies that we want to take forward, taking on board what island authorities and communities tell us that they need to thrive and flourish. We will introduce a new £5 million island bond fund, providing up to £50,000 each for up to 100 households by 2026, supporting a sustainable demographic future. Additionally, we will invest £30 million of infrastructure investment plan capital funding over the next five years to ensure delivery of the national islands plan by supporting a range of areas, including tourism, infrastructure, innovation, energy transition and skills, informed fire learning of how island communities have responded and adapted to Covid-19. We will also deliver at least three carbon neutral islands by 2040, which will create jobs, protect our island environments from climate change and will contribute to our 2045 net zero commitment. Our commitments to reform and revitalise the rural affairs and island priorities are bold and ambitious. I clearly want to be busy over the coming session, but I also want to extend my offer in the spirit of the new co-operation agreement with the Scottish Greens to work with this committee in particular to take forward our programme for government and manifesto commitments. I know that many of you who live in rural areas have islands in your constituencies, and I know a lot of those issues, as well as, if not better than me, so it doesn't make sense to ignore that knowledge and experience. I'm sure, too, that we all share a common aim and purpose, which is ultimately to make life in Scotland better for us all, and I would welcome the opportunity to work with you over the course of the parliamentary term to help to achieve that for Scotland's rural and island communities. I look forward to your questions and to the discussion today. Thank you for your opening statement, cabinet secretary. It's clear that your remit is the Scottish Food Agency, Agriculture, Fisheries, Aquaculture, Animal Welfare and Crofting. However, there are significant overlaps in the portfolios that we see cabinet secretaries hold, and there's an overlap particularly with the cabinet secretary for net zero. We had a session last week on food and drink supply chain, where there was potential overlap with the economy committee. Can you let us know how you intend to deal with these overlaps and how closely will you be working with the cabinet secretary for net zero, particularly when it comes to issues such as biodiversity and land reform? I will, of course, be working closely with my colleagues right across Cabinet as well as with junior ministerial colleagues, too. As you mentioned, there are quite a lot of areas of overlap when you look at our marine environment as well as our terrestrial environment, too, when it comes to land use, when it comes to biodiversity. So, of course, I will have close working relationships, and I work closely with ministers and other cabinet colleagues already in relation to those overlapping issues. In previous roles that I've had in government, I worked between two cabinet secretaries. There was, of course, a lot of overlap there. That was a relationship that worked, and it makes sense for us all to work together in meeting the really historic and demanding targets when it comes to emission reductions and climate change that we have. So, that close working has been going on, and that will continue. Specifically, with some bills that are coming up, can you give us some more details about the fox control bill and where that might sit, given again the potential overlap between the committee dealing with animal welfare and the net zero with land and forestry, and some details on the likely timescales for the good nation bill coming forward? Yes. In relation to the fox control bill that will be led by the minister for environment and land reform, Mary McCallan, and in relation to the timescales for the good food nation bill, that was in the programme for government, and we will be introducing that shortly. That raises the question. Mary McCallan is going to be the lead minister. Is that bill likely to come to our committee or to the cabinet secretary that she chances to in net zero? You mean in relation to the committee consideration of the bill? Yes. I mean, I believe that that may well fall to the rebate of the rural affairs islands and natural inviting committee, but I think that when it comes to the committee allocation of bills and pieces of legislation, that will ultimately be up to the bureau to determine. Okay, thank you. I'm now going to move on to some questions on agriculture, and I'll move to Jim for the first question. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for attending. I've got a couple of questions here that I'd like to go over with you. First of all, you gave a broad outline of what the new agricultural bill that you're bringing forward for agricultural subsidy is about. What do you hope to achieve? What is its purpose, specifically relating to food production? What are the conditionality on support look like in terms of the balance between environmental and food production? What's the balance going to be, or do you have any idea what the balance is going to be between the two? I really want to know what it is that you're trying to achieve with the bill that you're bringing forward for the new agricultural subsidy system. Thank you for those questions. In relation to the new agriculture bill and what we're hoping to achieve with that, we support active farming, and we'll be supporting the continuation of direct payments. What's critical with that is that we continue to support food production, but we've also committed in our manifesto that we would be shifting half of all funding for farming and crofting to conditional support by 2025. That would be seeing farmers and crofters rewarded for their role in delivering wider biodiversity and environmental benefits. When it comes to conditionality and what that might look like, that was something that was considered by the farmer-led groups, and they considered what that might look like for each of the different sectors. I think that there were different suggestions in that as well as to what that might look like, but what will be clear from all that work is that conditionality would mean reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the lowest possible level for every business, as well as restoring and protecting biodiversity for our farm landscapes, and those two objectives go hand in hand. A critical element of us developing our proposals for that bill is making sure that that's co-developed and co-produced. We want to make sure that we bring farmers and industry along with us throughout that process, which is why we established the Agriculture Reform Implementation and Oversight Board, so that we can test proposals and ensure that we are working hand in hand when it comes to developing new policy. We hope that in doing that that means that new policy will be a success. You have said that there will be a 50-50 on environmental and on food production. My understanding is that that differs radically from the UK agricultural act that has been passed. Does that then put us in a collision course with the UK Government in terms of the UK internal market act if we have a different agricultural policy for here in Scotland? Yes, that will be different to what is being pursued across the rest of the UK and from England in particular where they will be removing and phasing out direct payments and looking at a more outcomes-based approach. I think that that's where we could start to see issues when we look at what's happening in relation to the internal market act, subsidy control and what's being brought into replace state aid. That is a big concern for us. We're not 100 per cent clear yet how that will impact on our ability to take a different policy course than what's being pursued elsewhere. When it comes to subsidy control, we'd specifically asked that agriculture wasn't included in that. We haven't had the results of the consultation shared with us in relation to that because that could well constrain us in ways that we're not 100 per cent clear yet on how that could or what the full impacts of that would be. However, in the meantime, it's important for us to set our own agriculture policy for Scotland. We have a very different land type to the rest of the UK and that's why it's important that we have the ability to set our own policy and set a framework for payments that works for farmers and land managers here in Scotland. From that, it's clear that we need to give a very close eye on where the governance is going to be and where it could bring us into conflict with the UK Government as the policy is developed. Would that be fair to say? Absolutely, because between the internal market act and what's being proposed in relation to the subsidy control, that's where we have to be very careful and keep a close eye on how that develops. We continue to try to engage with the UK Government when it comes to those issues to ensure that our interests are represented and that we have the ability to create our own policy here. That can be very difficult when you're not provided with all the information that you need. I'm aware that I'm taking up a lot of time. I've got two very quick questions for you, cabinet secretary. The NFU has written to Kevin Foster asking for a 12-month Covid recovery visa. Do you know if they've had any response? Have you had any communication with them in order to get that put in place? The second thing that I wanted to ask you about that I've only just learned about is something in the new programme for government that you're looking at the living wage for agricultural workers. We already have the agricultural wages order in Scotland that takes agricultural wages well above the minimum wage. I don't know where the balance is. Are you telling us that the agricultural wages order will be scrapped or is there something else that we don't know about at this stage? No, we're not saying that the order would be scrapped and we'd very much be working with the agricultural wages board to try and reach that goal where wages are below the living wage. Sorry, just to come back to your previous point, was that in relation to the question about NFUS to the UK Government? Yes, they wrote to Kevin Foster, who is the Undersecretary for Future Borders and Immigration, asking for a 12-month Covid visa in order to get over the short-term supply chain of workforce in the agricultural sector. Do you know if that has been granted and have you had any communication with the UK Government on that? As far as I'm aware, I don't believe that there has been a response to that and I personally haven't had any communications from the UK Government in relation to that. Of course, that is an issue that we've continued to pursue with the UK Government because, as the committee will be aware, that is absolutely critical now in terms of our food production and it's right across the supply chain. I know that the committee took evidence on that last week and it was raised countless times throughout the debate that we had on food and drink last week, too. There have been asks of the UK Government in relation to the shortage occupation list, some of the requests that you've mentioned there, Mr Fairlie, and we, of course, support that. Unfortunately, the levers to try and influence any of that aren't within our control, so on the back of the letters that were issued by industry and by NFUS last week, I've also written to the UK Government to request a call with the Home Secretary to discuss the critical issues that we're facing here in Scotland now in the hope that they'll listen to us. As I've outlined in the debate last week, we've made 19 different approaches to discuss migration with the UK Government, and so far, every single one of them has been ignored. I presume that you will bring us up to date if there is any progress in any of those issues. I'd be happy to keep the committee up to date. Thank you. Just before a short supplement from Rachel, you suggested that you've contacted the UK Government 19 times without response. Could you tell us how many times your civil servants have met with the equivalent civil servants in Westminster over the last month? How many meetings have been held? I wouldn't be able to tell you that off of the top of my head, convener, but I'd be happy to get back to the committee with that further information. Yeah, that would be useful. I'd now move on to Rachel and then Alistair. In the programme for government, it says that you'll bring forward a preliminary package of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture developed by COP26. That's actually a very tight time frame. My question supplementary is twofold on this. With regards to gene editing, it wasn't mentioned in the programme for government, and if you're going to have close alignment with the EU, that means that you're almost shutting the door to innovation to ensure that you do reduce emissions. Do you have any plans that you can share with the committee on that? I don't have any particular plans on that at the moment that I can share with the committee. We're aware of the discussions that are happening within the EU on this at the moment, and that is, of course, an area that we're monitoring closely. Of course, as there are developments in that area, I'd be happy to update the committee on that. I have a few questions that are all—you won't be too surprised to hear—island-related, but the first of them was around fisheries. Particularly if you can tell us any more about plans in the area of inshore fisheries and how that will affect fishing effort within the three mile limit. Obviously, that's a great interest on the west coast. Yes, I completely understand that. In relation to inshore fisheries, I know that the committee will be aware of the co-operation agreement with the Scottish Green Party, where we set out a number of measures that we're looking at in relation to inshore fisheries in relation to putting a cap on activity, but as well as our intention to introduce highly protected marine areas, which would cover about 10 per cent of our sea area. Of course, we'll be following the due process in relation to that and consulting and engaging with communities, with the fisheries sector, as well as we look to introduce those measures. However, there's also the future fisheries management strategy, which was published towards the tail end of last year. We'll also be publishing an action plan on that for delivery towards the end of this year. Of course, in my role, I undertake a lot of engagement with the various different inshore fisheries groups. I met with the regional inshore fisheries groups, the chairs of those groups just earlier this week, and we'll continue to engage with the sector. As the member will be aware, there are a lot of competing interests in our marine environment, whether that's renewable energy or other fishing interests. We also have to try to improve our marine environment, protect our fish stocks and improve our marine biodiversity. There will be a lot of challenges coming up over the next few years, but it's that engagement and consultation, so we fully understand all the issues and work with communities as we look to develop our future proposals. You mentioned designations and working with communities. One of the issues in some parts of the country, at least in the past, has been about trying to move towards a more local management of marine designations. That's happened in some places but not others. Is this some of the Government will be seeking to make real the local management wherever possible of those designations? Absolutely, because I think that where we have that local management in place, I know that there's been a couple of pilots there that seems to be operating really well, and that's where we welcome proposals from the regional inshore fisheries groups about how that can be done in other areas. I think that local management and that local ownership of it is really important if we want to be able to make progress, so I think that that will be a critical part of our work as we go forward. Can I just ask, just in the back of the questionnaire, about the inshore fisheries groups? The clear committee produced a report last year that identified that there was specific issues with capacity and funding for the inshore fisheries groups, which you've already mentioned are really important. Is there any plans to improve the funding for these groups to carry out the good work when it comes to inshore fisheries? Again, as I said, I met with the regional inshore fisheries groups earlier this week, where we talked about if there is going to be future engagement, and we want them to continue on in the work that they're doing, the support that they would be needing for that. Of course, those are issues that we will continue to consider as we move forward, because we want to make sure that the groups have the resources that they need to enable them to look at issues such as future local management plans and to undertake the engagement that we will need to happen. Of course, we will continue to discuss that with them. Again, on involving people, it's the issue of crofting law, which I know you're aware of, although it doesn't feature in this year's legislative programme. I was just keen to know whether any planning is being done around what future crofting reform legislation might look like, given the fact that we have a body of work that has been done in the form of the attractively named crofting law sump of potential changes that could be made. Is that going to be made use of and given consideration to by the Government? You're absolutely right. We know that there's a lot of work that's already been undertaken, and unfortunately we weren't able to progress that in the last term of the Parliament. Even though it's not in the programme for government this year, we have made a commitment to modernising crofting law. Obviously, we will be making sure that we utilise and look to all the work that has been done on that so far. However, you'll be aware and the committee will be aware that crofting legislation is really complex and it's not expected that any future work that we undertake on that is going to be straightforward. The previous work that had been undertaken highlighted some of the difficulties that we have in reaching consensus on some of the key matters that are a lot of important matters. Some of them seem to be simple, so building consensus around some of those issues is going to be key in driving this work forward, but I want to assure you and the committee that the work that has been previously undertaken by the crofting law group and the law society will be standing us in good stead when work on crofting form commences. On timescale, we're still to find a time and legislative programme for that, and any decisions that would be taken by cabinet in the context of setting out the future legislative programmes in the normal way. I reiterate the commitment that we have committed to modernising crofting law and will be intending to taking that forward. Thank you. Finally, convener, there's a consultation under way just now around the Government's policy on island bonds. I'm sure that the Government is open to seeing what's in that consultation, but what scope do you feel there is to refine that policy as it goes to make sure it meets everyone's needs? There will be a lot of scope to define that as it develops, because the consultation is open, as you've mentioned, but it is entirely open, too. Obviously, we've committed to developing £5 million island bonds, which, with the intention of that, is to offer 100 bonds of £50,000 to young people and families. That could be either to encourage people to move to islands where there's a fragile population or where they're suffering from depopulation, or it could be to help to keep people on our islands, too. Again, we're very much at the early stages of this, and we're keen to hear what people think about it. I've already been inundated with lots of emails about it, so I hope that we get a really high return rate for this consultation. I would encourage everyone to take part in that and to make their views clear. We'll also have to undertake an island community's impact assessment as part of that work, too. We want to make sure that we do that work early so that it can help inform how this policy develops, but we certainly are open at this stage. That's where the consultation is really important in helping to shape this policy. That is just one measure. It's not expected that this will radically resolve some of the depopulation issues that some islands are experiencing, but it's just one tool that can be used to help tackle some of those issues. We're going to jump back to fisheries and ask Karen and Beatrice to ask some questions on fishery policy. As you're aware, the fishing industry has had quite a hard time of late, particularly the double whammy of Covid and Brexit, and they are naturally concerned for their future. With that feeling of vulnerability, they are now quite sceptical of the co-operation agreement with the Greens, and I was just wondering if you could say anything to alleviate fears, in particular in terms of the distribution of quota and looking to tackle discards and by-catch. Can you tell us a bit more about how that has been worked on within the future fisheries management strategy? Yes, absolutely. In relation to your first point about the co-operation agreement with the Greens, engagement with different stakeholders is an absolutely critical part of my job, and it's something that I've sought to do since I've been appointed. Since we made the announcements about the co-operation agreement, I've sought to meet with fisheries stakeholders to discuss any concerns or any potential issues that they might have in relation to that, but the fact is that we still want to see sustainable development across our fisheries sector. I understand that there are concerns there, but a really important part of, as we move through this, the agreement that we've reached and the policies that we've outlined there is about engagement and consultation, looking at the evidence that we have to make sure that we're basing our decisions on the best available evidence, and working with stakeholders on that engagement is an absolutely critical part of that process. There are a lot of issues in the marine environment. I spoke a bit earlier about the increasingly cluttered landscape that we see in our seas and the competing interests that there can be between fisheries, renewable energy, as well as trying to protect our marine environment in the best way that we can. I again want to assure you and the committee that we will be engaging and going through the proper process as we look to develop the policies that we've set out in the co-operation agreement. In relation to some of the other issues that you've raised there about catching policy, we have set out quite a few details within the programme for government about how we intend to move that forward. Our work on fisheries is forward, but of course the pandemic that we've been through, as you said, is just the impact that we've seen on the seafood and fisheries industry in particular. I think that it's shown how we need to boost the resilience of the industry overall and really try to strengthen the links between the catching sector and onshore interests. Whether that's through looking at diversification of fishing opportunities as well as attracting new entrants. We really want to tackle some of the known issues that we know that we have. When you look at the landing obligation, we will be introducing a future catching policy, and that's really to try to take a tailored approach to tackling discards and reducing unwanted catch through various technical and spatial measures. We intend to consult on that before the end of the year and intend to introduce legislation on that next year. As I said in a previous response, we will also be publishing a delivery plan that sets out our plans for delivering the future fisheries management strategy and the 12 points that are within that, which I think will address a lot of the issues that are being experienced there. That has strong backing from all of our stakeholders, too, and that really will be a critical piece of work. It's also important to note that coming back to the co-operation agreement that really will build on what we've seen set out in the future fisheries management strategy. Thank you. Just coming back there, you touched upon enticing new entrants into the industry. I know that there's been fantastic work in and around women in agriculture, and I was just wondering is there any scope to look at a kind of programme for women in agriculture fisheries? Yes, you're absolutely right. That is a key piece of work that we've taken forward when we look at agriculture, but we are also working closely with the Scottish Fish and Industry, the Scottish Fishing Safety Group. That's about improving safety for all fishers. That group recently received £148,000 through the Marine Fund Scotland to deliver free safety training for fishing vessel crews. We're also, as well as that, in looking at the safety aspect. We're carrying out specific research into the barriers that will face new entrants and the specific qualities groups such as women to entering and really progressing through the fishing industry. We'll be looking to take specific action in relation to that through the future fisheries management strategy to ensure that we have the right support in place. In addition to that, through the Marine Fund, new entrants are also able to apply for funding towards the purchase of a second-hand fishing vessel. Between looking at new entrants and looking at women, just in the same way that we've done in agriculture, we realise that there is more scope for diversity there, and we want to ensure that we make the industry as open and as successful as possible. I'm going to bring Jenny in for a supplementary on fishing before moving to Beatrice. Thank you, convener, and thank you, cabinet secretary, for attending. It's a follow-on from Karen's question with regard to the local ability for processing of fish and also, given Brexit and the impact that that's been had on our local fishermen and inshore fishermen, how the Scottish Government can support them to perhaps change their market from Europe to Scotland and what support you're giving them? You're absolutely right, and especially while we know in processing that there have been huge issues there and huge issues as a result of Brexit, as I outlined in my opening statement as well. That's where we're working on a strategy that will be delivered next year, looking at the various opportunities and what we can do to work with the industry and to try and develop some of the markets and find new markets based on what's being lost that we've seen through leaving the EU. We very much intend and we've been working with the industry throughout that to develop the strategy and we'll continue to work with them on implementing that, but, of course, we want to see the industry be a success. Again, I mean, I'm fairly touched earlier on the labour element of that as well, and that's also a critical issue spoken to some seafood processors who've highlighted that and the serious problems that they now face in terms of the recruitment challenges. I think that when we look at the proportion of the EU workforce and when it comes to seafood processing, I think that that's been about nearly 60 per cent of the workforce has been from EU citizens and, in Grampian, the proportion of that is even higher. I think that it's about 70 per cent or even higher than that. Again, that's where we continue to press to try and resolve some of the immediate and critical issues, but we also want to try and encourage people into doing what we can within Scotland to encourage people into these sectors and to really develop and help the industry as much as we can. Thanks, convener, and good morning Cabinet Secretary. First of all, can I thank you for taking the time to come to Shetland in the early days of your new appointment? I hope that it's not the last time we see you in Shetland. Can I ask about vessel tracking and monitoring systems and what the plans are and the potential issues that you see in trying to monitor movements of fishing vessels via GPS? We know that there are concerns about fisheries enforcement, so I'd be interested to get your take on that. Thank you. I had a very busy visit to Shetland and, of course, I met fishers when I was there, too, and some from the seafood industry. I can tell you that it will not be my last visit there, and I fully intend to keep that engagement going and to visit again when I can. Now, when it comes to remote electronic monitoring, I understand that there may be some concerns there, but I think that this is something that is actually a really positive measure. It helps us build a picture. When it comes to monitoring and enforcement, it fills in those data gaps, and I think that it will work to the benefit of fishers. Occasionally, right now, we can see in some areas where people can be accused of either entering or undertaking activity in marine protected areas when that hasn't been the case. I think that that will help to protect the industry in some ways from some accusations like that when that can occur. It also helps to build data and evidence for us. As I said, we've outlined our plans to develop a suite of highly-protected marine areas, as well as introducing management measures for marine protected areas and protecting priority marine features. Being able to look at vessel activity where that activity is taking place is going to be absolutely vital. That's where I see that as a really positive step. How does that impact on the enforcement in terms of foreign vessels? You'll be aware of the concerns that some have expressed that foreign vessels are bordered more often than UK or Scottish vessels. Yes, I understand that the concerns have been about that. I've received a fair bit of correspondence on that from various members, too, but I would say that we've had freedom of information requests that have been published on that, which show that that isn't necessarily the case. However, I would also inform the committee that, when it comes to compliance with some of the other issues that we're seeing, some of that is the responsibility of the maritime and coast guard agency. I'd actually requested a meeting with them, which I think may have been arranged at some points—I can't remember the exact date—to discuss some of the issues that we're seeing and how we can try to prevent some of the conflicts from taking place. The measures that we introduced in Scotland are not just for our vessels. We want to ensure that all vessels are part of the programme and that that is done in a fair and transparent way. Can I move on to the aquaculture sector and ask if there's a timescale for the regulatory reform? Yes. I'm sure that the committee will be aware that we appointed Professor Russell Griggs to lead on this piece of work. I'd be happy to send the terms of reference for that to the committee if they haven't got that already, but we are expecting the report by the end of the year, the first few months or the fact-finding, where we'll be expecting to have recommendations from Professor Griggs as to the areas that we need to look at for reform and other pieces of work. We would expect to see the initial outcome from the first phase of that review before looking at further actions. I have one final question on shore fisheries. There are moves to look at bringing back a three-mile limit for mobile fishing gear, which will almost certainly lead to an increase in static gear. At the moment, there's the suggestion that an inshore waters static gear is a source of mortality in humpback whales, which could be a current at the rate in order of a magnitude that would render the species unsustainable. Can you tell us what the Government's policies would be to ensure the right balance between static and mobile fishing gear and an impact on species such as humpback whales and whatever? In relation to your first point about the three-mile limit, that's not a policy that we've agreed to or adopted because we don't agree with taking a blanket approach given how different and variable the coastline of Scotland is. That's where a tailored approach seems to be a lot more effective and beneficial. That's where the work that we've done through the future fisheries management strategy with the regional inshore fisheries groups and looking at local management, where that can work, has been vital in helping to inform how we move forward and how we handle some of the issues that you've outlined. That's very much the approach that we've taken so far, that engagement, that consultation and looking at the different environments that we have surrounding our coastal communities in Scotland. I think that that's the approach that makes sense and that's certainly the approach that we fully intend to continue. Okay, thanks. I'm going to move on to my series with questions on islands. Thanks, Kamina. Thank you to the cabinet secretary for coming before the committee this morning. In the cabinet secretary's opening remarks, she said that the Government's taking on board what island communities say that they want and that there's been much talk of island community impact assessments. Does the cabinet secretary think that the Scottish Government has had sufficient concern for island communities and island economies in Hyal's decision to push ahead with the process of centralisation? Obviously, as you mentioned, the islands act, we have a duty to take islands issues into account when developing or reviewing policy strategies or services as part of island communities impact assessments and that's a legal requirement. Of course, that's a hugely important point when we're looking to develop policy. I think that they have been effective in helping to identify issues, but we continue to engage with communities and stakeholders as part of the island community impact assessment process in relation to a wide range of policies and services that are being developed, including transport, health and various aspects of food and drink. We also look to get feedback through that process. If there's anything helpful that we can do that helps to update our guidance on our toolkit, that's very much what we would like to do. In relation to your specific point about Hyal, I'm sure that the member will be aware that this is within the remit of the transport minister Graham Day. If there are any specific issues that you want to follow up within that, I suggest that the committee contacts the transport minister or be happy to provide them with further information. Given that this is a publicly owned airline and that the Government has a policy of looking to repopulate islands, I'm surprised that more hasn't been done. It's good to hear that you're engaging with different stakeholders. I'm aware that it falls under the remit of the transport minister. The workers and the trade union representatives have written to the transport minister to meet him. Would you encourage him to meet him? I know that the transport minister has been undertaking engagement in and around this issue, but I'd be happy to ask the transport minister to get in touch with the committee and to outline the work that's been happening in that regard, if the committee would find that helpful. Just on that, last night, we had a very interesting debate on ferries that was brought forward by our committee member here, Alasdair Allan. Obviously, ferries are 100 per cent connected to islands by their very nature. If we were to look at further pieces of work on ferries to islands and potentially the make-up of the board of CalMac and so on, is that something that you would take up, given that it's solely our island's affair or is it something that we should take up with the minister for transport? It's not solely an island's affair, but ferries fall within the view of the transport minister. If there were any specific pieces of work that the committee were looking to do in that regard, it would be the transport minister who would be best in place to respond to that. We're now going to move on to some questions on animal welfare from Rachael Hamilton. Cabinet Secretary, you'll be aware that BASC, with the support of rural workers, is calling for the formation of a task group. That was to consider the findings of the Scottish Government research on that, which you commissioned. I just wondered why that wasn't in the programme for government and if it was something that the Scottish Government was considering taking forward. I'm really sorry, I missed the first part of that question in relation to the task force that you were asking for. You commissioned research on the abuse of Scottish gamekeepers and I wondered why that wasn't included in your programme for government, if you had any intention to take that forward on behalf of rural workers. I'd be happy to come back to the member into the committee with more information on the stage to which that work reached. Obviously, there is a lot of work on going across government, which isn't necessarily detailed point by point in the programme for government, but in relation to that, again, I'd be happy to get back to the committee. My next question is, how soon can we expect the Grouse licensing and modernisation of the DEAR Act who will be responsible for taking that forward and which committee will scrutinise those points of licensing? In relation to committee scrutiny, again, as we touched on earlier, that would be a point for the bureau to discuss with the committee as to which committee would be best placed to consider which relevant pieces of legislation. When it comes to wildlife and some of the issues that you've mentioned there about the Grouse management review and the response to the DEAR working group as well, those are issues that are the responsibility of the Minister for Environment and Land Reform, Mary McCallan, who would be the lead minister in relation to those. Can the cabinet secretary give us a bit more information about what it means in the programme for government when it says that the Scottish Government will review the wider species licensing system? Sorry, the wider species licensing in general. So, we understand the Grouse more licensing or the other licensing that you're likely to bring in, but do you have any detail on what it means when you say in the programme of government wider species? Well, obviously we do licence a number of various different species in Scotland, and as we've talked about there in relation to looking at licensing for Grouse more, we also have licences in relation to beavers. Some of this work has been set out in the draft co-operation agreement with the Scottish Green Party as well, so this is really to ensure that our licensing scheme works in the way that we hope it does and is effective in that way. On the fox control bill, considering your role as cabinet secretary to support wider rural economy and the countryside people who work in their rural workers, what role will you play to ensure that those rural areas on people that work in it are able to support and protect their livestock and livelihoods? How will you be part of that, considering you've said that Mary McCallan will lead on the fox control bill? I mean, as I mentioned previously, as a minister who worked between two different cabinet secretaries as well, you're not working in isolation and especially when these issues concern various other aspects across wider portfolios, so of course there will be close working around that, but then it's also a responsibility that as we develop legislation and we look to develop these proposals, you know, I did this in my previous role, I do it in my role now that you engage with all your stakeholders, with people who are going to be affected by the legislation, and it's also a critical part of any piece of legislation that there's open consultation, so we get the feedback on the proposals that we need to help us to shape that legislation and frame it in the best possible way. That work will be undertaken in the process of developing that legislation, but there is always a lead minister or a lead cabinet secretary to take forward various bits of legislation depending on where it falls in the portfolio, and as I've mentioned previously, this falls within the portfolio of the environment and land reform minister, if he will be taking the lead on that. I think it might be helpful if at a later stage, particularly for my benefit, and I don't know about other committee members, as to why something like that would fall in another portfolio, particularly when it is regarding control of a pest to protect livestock, which is under your remit. I've got another question regarding Forestry and Land Scotland's powers. I just wondered if there was any plan to update the powers that they have with regard to controlling dear population as we move to planting more trees across Scotland, particularly when it comes to the welfare of pregnant female hines? I know that this has been an issue that has received quite a lot of attention recently, but I think that when we look at dear numbers across Scotland, they've almost doubled from the period from 1998 to now. Of course, managing numbers is absolutely necessary to reduce the ecological damage that they can do, as well as to protect young trees. That's absolutely imperative. They've been helping to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis. I assure the committee that, when it comes to this, that activity is licensed by NatureScot. Welfare is obviously taken very seriously, whether considering to authorise the taking of deer during the period of that highest welfare risk to dependent young. The people that undertake that activity have to be trained to go through rigorous training to comply with best practice on that. What we've seen recently is not a routine operation, but Forestry and Land Scotland is responding to the annual surveys that they do of crop damage and habitat impacts from deer and trying to prioritise deer management on vulnerable areas of land. A substantial number of Scotland's land management organisations recognise the need for on-going control of deer populations and acknowledge that Forestry and Land Scotland delivers deer management to the highest possible standards. Just to come back to the previous point that you made at the start of your question there, and where various bits and pieces fall, that wildlife management is the responsibility of the minister for environment and land reform, and that's why the legislation in that regard will be led by that minister. I think that we'll work out where it lies in terms of scrutiny as well and that joint responsibility between the two committees. Convener, may I just ask the last question, and it's just not about animal welfare, but it was something regarding future farm policy. It was actually about how the current Scottish tenancy legislation will fit in with the conditionality of public goods for public money. I just wondered how the cabinet secretary will get involved in informing maybe future land reform that has an effect on Scottish tenants, who may potentially be breaching rules of husbandry where agricultural production is of paramount importance in their role as a tenant? Yes, obviously. In relation to the tenant farmers, we've made a PFG commitment in that regard, and that would be undertaken through land reform legislation, so it would be closely involved in that work. We also want to ensure that tenant farmers can play as full a role as possible when we're looking at being able to undertake measures for climate mitigation and emissions reductions. There are a number of various schemes that are being worked on in that regard and to ensure that that can happen. We're going to jump back to agriculture with some questions from Ariann, but before that, you have a commitment to establish a new Scottish veterinary service. Could you just set out what you aim to achieve, what the outcomes will be and an indication of how long you think it will take to set this up? Yes, absolutely. I'm happy to give the committee a bit of background as to where that came from as well. We'd had an independent review of the current field services that are delivered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and that was commissioned by ministers a couple of years ago now to ensure that it still continues to offer value for money and to see whether any other models could deliver efficiencies or improve the effectiveness of that. The report that was carried out into that was published early last year, and it gave 10 recommendations. That included the creation of a standalone Scottish Animal Health and Welfare delivery body that was felt best meet Scotland's long-term interests. We've recently asked Professor Milne, who undertook that work, to revisit that report and to look at the manifesto commitment and to update his report to take account of the changes that have taken place since then. Obviously, we've seen the impact of EU exit, the new animal health regulations and Covid-19, and we're expecting that report back in October. However, when it comes to the new Scottish veterinary service itself, we expect that that would at least be established within the lifetime of the Parliament. Of course, that would be subject to ensuring that we get the parliamentary time to deliver that. The initial work that is expected to create that would be estimated to take around 18 months to do, but there is obviously a lot of information that we have to scope out as part of that process. We will consider how we are going to deliver the most effective model and what the most effective model would be, but we think that, as I say, hopefully within the lifetime of this Parliament, we will be able to undertake that work and secure the parliamentary time to deliver a veterinary service that works for Scotland and delivers for Scotland. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for joining us this morning. It's good to hear you laying out a lot of diverse challenges that you're facing, but the work to transition our rural areas in response to climate emergency and biodiversity loss is in terms of agriculture, where my question is. I'm curious to hear a little bit more detail about how you see that. I think that you talked about it a little bit with Jim Fairlie's questions, but I'm curious to hear a little bit more about how that will show up in new agriculture and land use policies. I suppose that the key thing that we're looking at—obviously, we've done the work through the farmer-led groups who delivered a suite of recommendations, and that was a manifesto commitment that we would deliver on that. I met the chairs of the farmer-led groups earlier in the summer, not long after being appointed, who were all really enthusiastic and keen to get to work and seeing those recommendations delivered and to play their part in reducing emissions in Scotland. I think that we have—there are going to be huge challenges here. I don't think that there's any getting around that or anybody would underplay that, but I think that we are at a point that we can be world leaders in Scotland when it comes to sustainable agriculture and why we want to work alongside industry, farmers and land managers in trying to deliver that. In terms of what the detailed proposals of that might look like, of course, that will be for the work of the board to work through to develop proposals, to test those proposals, to see what will work most effectively. As I said in the previous response, what we committed to in our manifesto was shifting half of the funding that we currently have for farming and crofting to conditional support by 2025. Of course, a key part of that will be, although I cannot give the specific measures or what that might look like and we are still to do that work and co-develop that. It will, of course, be ensuring that every farm business is reducing their emissions to the lowest possible level and doing what they can to restore and protect biodiversity across their farm businesses. I think that the biodiversity and emissions reductions will be key component parts of that. Just following on from that, in the agreement or the programme for government, we talked about organics and doubling the amount of organics from—I think that the current amount is 1.9 per cent, and I'm aware that in Europe they're calling for 25 per cent organics. Obviously, we can't just suddenly make that leap. Do you see this doubling of organics like a small amount as a step in the direction to a larger direction in the future? Obviously, we've got five years to do this doubling. Land takes time to transition to organic, but underneath all of it what we're really talking about is soil fertility, soil health, if we want something for future generations. I'd love to hear a little bit more about long-term thoughts around organic farming. Absolutely. As you've said out there, the EU target is very ambitious. It's 25 per cent. As you've said there, the amount of land that we have being farmed organically is currently about 1.7 per cent. I think that the target that we have is achievable because I don't think that there's any point in setting targets that would be so far out of reach that we haven't got a chance of getting there. We've got to be pragmatic but also be ambitious with what we can do as well. I think that that's one area that has been of concern is the fact that we've seen the amount of land being farmed organically over recent times reduced when, of course, we would want to see that improve and increase. What we say out in the co-operation agreement is that we would want to see that at least a double by the end of this parliamentary session. At least a double, so hopefully we could see it raised further than that if we can. I hope that we absolutely would be able to get there, but we also will be delivering on an action plan for organic farming. We had a previous plan in place up until 2020, so we'll build on the work that's been done through that. Of course, we'll work with the organic sector to make sure that we're working together, looking at the different actions that we can take to, first of all, increase the amount of land that's being farmed organically. And in relation to organic produce, what we can do in that regard, obviously a critically important part of that as well is the food for life scheme that we have, which obviously looks to get more organic produce into local authorities and being served in our schools. That's an initiative that we very much support and are very much keen to see continue. I think that just over half the local authorities in Scotland are now signed up to that scheme as well, and a critical part of that that we'd also set out in our manifesto is how we can also look to harness the wider public procurement, the spending power that we have in relation and looking at the scheme that we have for food for life and how we can embed that and look to expand that across the wider public sector, all of which I think will help develop the work that we do on organics too. Arrianne, sorry, just before we move away from that topic, can I bring Jim in to the question on organic farming? Arrianne, sorry to interrupt you on that, but I'm keen to bore down a wee bit into this, cabinet secretary. Being a hard-nosed farmer as I was, finances are usually the driver for making anybody do anything in terms of trying to make a sustainable business. So have you allocated an amount of money that you're going to put into actually persuading people to go organic? Have you done a cost benefit analysis of the amount of money you're going to have to put in to do it? And have you looked at organic versus regenerative? And I don't want to set one off against the other, but regenerative and organic are not the same things. Arrianne, they're definitely not the same thing. So I just want to know have you looked at regenerative as opposed to organic? Do you look at them both as Arrianne does as being the same thing? How serious are you about really pushing that area of farming in Scotland? I think there's space for all of this, and it's certainly not about putting one sector against the other, and I very much don't intend to do that at all. In relation to support for organics, organics and conversion for that and the certification costs are currently met through the agri-environment scheme that we have. So since 2015, we've spent between £19 million and £20 million on organic conversion, and I know that there are specific costs related to that, and we need to do what we can to support those who are thinking of converting to organic. So I think that if we're looking to expand the amount of land that we farm organically, of course the support that's there will be a critical element of that, but of course all agricultural support is going to be considered by the implementation oversight board that we've established, so I'm sure that there will be discussions about that and further proposals developed as we move forward. Sorry, Arrianne, I don't wish to your position here. I visited a regenerative farm alongside Soil Association Scotland, and they're working very closely together, and they appreciate that there are slight differences, so I would just encourage the cabinet secretary to have a word with the Soil Association Scotland in relation to what they're doing with the regenerative side of things. Absolutely. I mean the Soil Association and our key stakeholders as well. I've met them over the course of the summer and will continue to engage with them as we move forward. Also an important part for me is getting out and about meeting different farmers from across Scotland too, so again that's something I fully intend to do and to keep doing. Okay, we'll go back to Arrianne and then Jenny Minto. Okay, thanks Jim for deepening the conversation there, and thank you cabinet secretary for your answers. We'll be having a chat over tea about regenerative and organic and how they work together, like Russian dolls or something. Anyway, to continue on, I'm going to move on to the product of organic soil, food and drink, and actually we've been talking about long-term future, but now I'd love to just hear a little bit, I think that the committee is keen to hear about issues of the implications of the EU exit for food and drink sector and how the important exports have been functioning nine months on from the end of the transition period and to let us know if there's any ongoing issues in any particular sectors. Yes, there's probably quite a lot to unpack in that question as well, so I'll try and answer as best as I can. I know that the committee took evidence on that last week and you'll be aware of some of the impacts that we've seen, and there's been some well-publicised impacts. It was Andrew Feithney from the East of Scotland growers just last week. There's been an article about the critical shortages that they're seeing. I think that Labour is one element that we've touched on today, that's been a critical element there too in relation to, you know, we're seeing so much food go to waste. I think that he's highlighted that there's about two and a half million heads of broccoli, one and a half million heads of cauliflower, because there isn't the Labour there to be able to deal with that. So, Labour is a critical issue right across the piece, and that is down to us no longer having freedom of movement. I also talked about Labour and the importance of the processing sector and some of the percentages that we see there. So, of course, there is going to be a huge impact when we put a stop to the free movement of people. In relation to trade, there's been an absolutely huge impact there as well. I mentioned in the food and drink debate last week that, I think, in January alone, cost the food and drink industry about £700 million just for that one month because of EU exit and, of course, the barriers that are now there for trade. That's the thing. Those barriers aren't going to go away. We've had, in particular, relation to seafood. There was a task force that's now morphed into an action group with the UK Government to try and work through a lot of those issues and barriers as best we can. However, there are more barriers that are due to come in over the coming months, and, again, there is no way of avoiding that. A lot of that has come in the way of export health certificates. There will be new requirements that had been due to come into force by the end of this month that are now becoming in January, which will affect aquaculture in particular. I think that we continue to see those issues and, like I say, they won't be getting better from here. If anything, there will be more checks and more issues the longer that we go on. All of that serves to hamper the food and drink industry from primary producer to manufacturer to the other end of the spectrum. We're seeing the impacts of that across the board. Thank you for that. I've got one more question, convener. It's a combination question around your remit and islands. It's a question about housing and land. Having visited Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles over the recess, I think that the big piece for me as a Highlands and Islands MSP is the whole piece around re-peopeling, keeping people who want to stay in their villages in place. Housing is a big part of that. Of course, jobs are the other part of the equation, but housing seemed to come up everywhere I went. I just wanted to hear and the issue of lack of land in some places to actually build the houses. For example, Barra, the land is all under crofting tenure and there isn't really much space to build housing. In other places, it's yes, the land is owned by a community trust, but the places, for example, in Harris, are very, very difficult to get to, so house builders don't want to take on the job, and yet there's the funding in place to do it. I just wondered where your role fits as Cabinet Secretary for Islands in your title in supporting housing to happen in our island communities? Absolutely. As the member in the committee will be aware, there are so many different issues that impact on our island communities that aren't necessarily, even though I'm responsible for islands, don't directly fall within my remit. When it comes to housing in our rural areas and our island communities, that falls within the remit of Shona Robison, who is Cabinet Secretary responsible for housing. Of course, there is a strong interest in that. Obviously, there are strong crossovers between that and my responsibilities. Across our islands in the summer, I visited Isle and Collins with Jenny Minto and was in Orkney and Shetland as well. What was really interesting was going to Collins, too, where a lack of affordable housing was a huge issue to be heard from some people who had family had been there for generations, but someone living in a caravan because there wasn't the housing there for them. We have job opportunities that were in that area, but there wasn't the housing there to enable employees or people to live on the island. I think that more than 40 per cent of the homes that are on Collins are either second or holiday homes, so there are undoubtedly issues there. Another positive about that visit, though, was the fact that we have the Rural and Islands housing funds. That's what I was there to launch, because we have been able to invest together with Maui, who would also be investing in helping to deliver new housing for the community, which will have a hugely positive impact. Within the co-operation agreement, we talked about developing an action plan for rural and island housing, as well as committing £45 million for rural and island communities. I talked earlier about the islands bond and how that will not resolve a lot of those issues on its own. Of course, there are a lot of issues that can affect why people live on islands and why people feel that they cannot live on islands or may have to leave. Your right housing is a critical element of that, but hopefully through the programme, funding and engaging with communities on looking at that action plan, we can really identify where the critical problems are and try to address that as best as we possibly can. Hopefully that will help alongside some of the other measures that I outlined today, too. Thank you for that, cabinet secretary. We'll move on to Jenny Minto. Thank you. Yes, Mary, it was an interesting couple of days on isla and colisey. I know that you visited Shetland after the Argyll and Bute islands. I think that you'll have picked up, as I certainly have, visiting a wider array of islands in my constituency, that each island is different. I was pleased to hear that you talked about a tailored approach to agriculture and fisheries, and I'm hoping that the same tailored approach will be given to islands, because, as you've highlighted, different islands have different needs. Dura, for example, has benefited hugely in the past 10 years from a very clear community action plan, but it's now reached the point where there's nobody with free volunteer time to continue that development of that island, so it's looking at that compared to other islands that you've highlighted, perhaps Colisey, as well as the different approaches that are needed. I'm interested to understand a bit more about the infrastructure spend that was announced and highlighted yesterday, but also a bit more about the carbon-neutral islands, because, again, in Argyll and Bute and across island communities, for example, Tyree has got a community wind turbine, which has given them a really strong funding base, which can allow them to do more stuff in their communities. I'm interested to know how different islands are at different stages with that and how the piloting will work. Thank you for those questions. I heard your speech yesterday in the programme for government debate discussing some of the renewable energy potential and developments that are taking place across your constituency and the opportunities there. That's where it was really interesting going around some of the different islands, because you're absolutely right. No one island is the same. There are different challenges, different opportunities and our proposal in relation to carbon-neutral islands. We're still at the very early stages of that as well, so, of course, we'll be engaging with island communities and local authorities to see how we can take that forward and whichever islands those might be, because it's really interesting to hear what you said there about the different developments on Tyree. Of course, when you look at islands like Orkney, we've seen the tidal developments, too. And there's so much going on. I think that that's where there's a real opportunity when it comes to our islands and really capturing and really leading the way when it comes to tackling our climate emissions and reaching that net zero capability, and they harness a lot of that. So, again, but at the early initial stages of that work, and, of course, I'll keep the committee up to date on that as we move forward and as that work progresses, too. In relation to the infrastructure fund, we have the islands programme, which has set out £30 million of funding over the course of the next five years. That's split into three separate programmes for this coming year, with £9.5 million being spent. We have the islands infrastructure fund, which is £6.2 million, so there are two projects that have been allocated funding from that so far, and the rest of that will be distributed across the islands authorities. There's the island communities fund, which is a fund of £2 million. That had opened earlier, and I think we'll be announcing the projects that have been successful through that soon. Also, over the course of the summer, I launched the healthy islands fund, which is a fund of £1.3 million. All of those funds together are recognising that island communities have had specific challenges that we've seen throughout the course of the pandemic. If it helps, it's also an outcome that we've seen from the national islands plan about improving the health and mental wellbeing of people on our islands. That fund is designed to help and address some of those issues. Through the communities fund and the infrastructure fund, we're looking for projects that will hopefully have an impact, and as we look to make that transition to become a green economy that are going to create jobs and help to retain jobs in island communities, too. There is a lot of work that's currently underway, but that's going to be a five-year programme of spend. Those are the allocations that have been made this year, but there will be more coming down the line, and hopefully we'll start to see the positive impacts that have been coming from the funds and the projects very soon. I'm sorry to keep coming back to you on stuff, cabinet secretary. The food and drink thing, given the size of the industry to Scotland, it's vital that we really look in detail. It's not the right briefing to go into the real detail of this, but there's a couple of things that I wanted to mention. The food and drink recovery plan, just what the details are of where you think that's going at the moment and what it's going to have to do going forward. I know that you've got the business development academy, where you've got 60 food and drink businesses that have signed up to it, and you've got every major industry body that has signed up to delivering it. I also just wanted to touch on sustainability Scottish, what it means, what it's going to deliver, where it fits in and where the current brands that we have fit in to the Scottish brand, and how we're going to define sustainability Scottish. I know that there's a lot in that. That's a very packed question, but if you could just give us a broad view on where you're thinking on some of that at the moment. No problem at all. In relation to the food and drink recovery plan, we funded £5 million over 2020-21 and another £5 million over the course of 2021-22 to help to deliver that, and there's 50 actions that were produced within that. I'd be happy to write to the committee and provide more information on those actions and some of the work that's being done. We had the regional food fund, and that's just one project that's being delivered through that as well, which I launched in Shetland over the summer to try and showcase and develop new markets for our food and drink, and that was positively welcomed there. We have the best produce anywhere in the world, and it's really important that we highlight that and showcase that and do what we can to develop markets for that as best we can, especially in light of some of the challenges that we've faced over the past while. On the back of that, in relation to some of the other funding that we provided, we provided £1.8 million to Seafood Scotland, and we've also had the food process and marketing and co-operation grant, which was £7.3 million of funding that was announced last month. All of that, with the intention of helping to keep our food and drink businesses more resilient and to help them as best we can through some of the issues that they face. We also went on to talk about sustainably Scottish as well, because I think that our produce is produced in a very sustainable way. I think that we have a lot to show off about in Scotland when it comes to the produce that we have in our food and drink. A sustainably Scottish brand is really about trying to capitalise on that. We're at the early stages of looking at that work as well, but of course we'll be working closely with Scotland Food and Drink to help to develop the proposals for that, what that might look like and to see how we can drive that work forward, because I think that it's really important that we highlight our Scottish produce, the fact that it is sustainably producing and capitalising on that as best we can. I really would like at some point to be able to come back to the sustainably Scottish thing, because we have brands that sit within the Scottish brand right now. Where do they fit into the whole thing? Are we going to absorb them into sustainably Scottish? So there are layers in this that we really need to drill into, and I'd appreciate being able to come back to it at a later date. If I could just jump in quickly there, I mean that's why we'll be working with Scotland Food and Drink and working with other organisations too, to make sure that we capture all that, that it's not competing, that we're able to tie all of that together. Thank you. You touched on the issues that we're facing at the moment with the food and drink supply chain, and it's somewhat disappointing but not surprising that you focused on Brexit. Can you give us some assurance that when you look at the issues that are facing some sectors, for example the growers, you do take the time to look at all the issues that are facing them and not focus on Brexit? We heard last week that it's a perfect storm, where Covid is playing a huge part. The lack of labour is not solely down to Brexit. We see lack of labour in Germany and Poland and other European countries, and ensure that you look fully into the other reasons for issues. One of those is the Scottish inability at the moment to grow our own rural workforce. There are certainly issues in land-based training that we need to address fairly rapidly to ensure that we've got the workforce for the future and we have professional dairymen and professional land managers. How are you going to bring forward policies to improve our land-based training to ensure that we've got a workforce here that's home growing to address some of the issues that Brexit will bring to us but also the impact of Covid? In relation to your first point, there's just no getting away from the fact that Brexit has been the single biggest factor that is impacting and is having such a huge impact across the food and drink industry. I'm not focusing on that to be political or to be difficult. Look at the industry letters that were sent to the UK Government. We can't just gloss over that and completely forget about it to make it politically convenient for some people. You talk about shortages elsewhere. I don't think that there are other countries in Europe that are seeing the actual visible shortages on supermarket shelves that we're starting to see here or who are experiencing the critical level of labour shortages that we are in Scotland. Again, when you look at the letter that was sent by industry to the UK Government, now yes, we're asked of the Scottish Government. I responded to that last week and I've already outlined what we're doing in Scotland but we don't have all the levers to fix this or to control it within our power. Of course, that's my job to make sure that we will do what we can to work with industry here and to mitigate that as best we can. However, when you don't have all the levers of power or control over the situation, then there is only so much that you can do within that. Unfortunately, a lot of those powers rest with the UK Government and they're not doing anything about it at the moment. On the negative side, we ensure that the Scottish whisky industry and our salmon industry, which are world leaders and some of our biggest exports, are going to seize the opportunities that we have in some of the forthcoming trade deals to ensure that those fantastic success stories continue. Okay, there's a few points that I want to cover here. I want to come back to the wider piece that you talked about, about getting people into the food and drink workforce. Touching on trade deals there, of course, it's good for the whisky industry, but we're not against trade deals. The whole point in that is that we shouldn't be supporting trade deals that come at the expense of one of our most critical sectors, which is agriculture. The Australian trade deal is only expected to benefit our GDP by 0.02 per cent, and who would be the hardest hit within that? It's going to be Scottish agriculture, it's going to be our red meat producers. Of course, again, we're not against trade, but we're not willing to sacrifice some of our most critical and important sectors in order to achieve that. We would welcome it if the UK Government would take some of our concerns on board. The precedent has already been set with the Australian trade deal. We have similar concerns over proposals for a New Zealand trade deal, which is not even set to increase our GDP at all. The last time I saw that, it was about 0 per cent. There would be no impact assessments done. The Trade and Agriculture Commission was meant to be set up to scrutinise those deals and look at the impact. It hasn't even been fully established yet to do that, so I don't think that it's fair to just try and cherry pick the very few what could be positive examples out of those trade deals and then just ignore the massive negatives and the massive impacts that that will have on critical sectors in the Scottish economy, which will disproportionately affect us compared to other parts of the UK. Coming back to some of the work that the Scottish Government is undertaking and what we hope to do over the longer term in relation to getting people into the food and drink industry right across the supply chain, that's why we set up a commission to do a route and branch review of land-based learning, so that's right from early years right through. The commission has members from the education sector as well as those from industry as well looking at the skills that we need and to see what we can do to promote food and drink industry as a destination of choice. Are we making it as open and accessible as it can be? Are we training people in the right way? One of the great projects that's been going on is with the machinery rings. There's Ring Link with my own constituency. I've been working in a pre-apprenticeship programme, working with local schools and giving people that real-world experience and working on farm, which has developed into helping people to end up in positive destinations, so that's why we are taking that longer-term approach and seeing what we can do to improve that skills pipeline for our young people. Thank you, Alasdair Allan. Thank you very much. The basic point that you make to Brexit is not the only factor in all this, but I'm sure that other members have had businesses phoning me up, I had one phoning me up just yesterday to say to me that Brexit is a factor in it and a very big one. You also make a very good point—I'm not addressing my remarks, I promise you to the minister—but you make a very good point about training, but can I ask the minister—you'll appreciate that there are some parts of the country where we're getting to the point where there is no workforce to train because there is nowhere for a workforce to live. What you feel you can do in your role as island minister to bring together different parts of government to ensure that we address that question, particularly in part to the country where the second home market and the holiday let market is having a huge impact on the availability of anywhere to live for anyone? Yes, you're absolutely right. Again, that's what I experienced on Consee, where there are job opportunities there but there was just a lack of adequate housing to be able to really house people and a lack of affordable housing as well. Again, that is a critical important point and while I'm not directly responsible for housing policy, I met with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing just last week to discuss some of those issues and to ensure that we're working together and working across government to try and address some of those critical challenges that we have that impact people across our islands. When we look at the islands bond, when we look at all the other various bits of funding, we need to try and address all those issues because I know that that's a critical point that comes out. I saw very well trying to encourage people to come to islands or create jobs, but we need to make sure that there's affordable housing to enable them to live there and to stay there and to become part of the community as well. Very cognisant of that. We're taking that work forward across government, making sure that our officials are working together as we look to develop policies in relation to that. My question was really in regards to food and drink. How does the cabinet secretaries and ministers work together, possibly having a kind of helicopter oversight approach to food and drink from production to plate? Particularly at the moment, you know people are struggling, there is real food poverty and how that portfolio is interlink one with another, especially when we talk about food waste. You're absolutely right. Food is an integral part of our lives, it affects so many different elements. There had previously been a ministerial working group on food and that's something that we've set out in the co-operation agreement that we want to re-establish and that would really bring together colleagues from across government to make sure that we're really addressing these issues as best we can. When I was minister for public health at the start of the year, it's obviously an area that has a huge impact there too because of a dietary related disease. It's impacted by poverty in so many different areas, so it's absolutely critical that we work across government to address some of the issues that we have. That's also going to be key when we look to developing and bringing forward the good food nation bill as well, and again making sure that we're working across government and right across wider society in Scotland and making sure that everybody has access to good food. Thank you, and Deb Beatrice. Yeah, it's just a quick question, it's really just following on from the points that Alasdair Allen was making and Karen had been making earlier about training and encouraging people to come into the food and drink workforce, but in terms of education and college education and lack of housing, there's actually a lack of student accommodation as well, so if we want to encourage people to come into the islands and learn and make use of the educational facilities that are there, then we need to do something about student accommodation too. And again, I talked about the rural housing action plan that we'd be bringing forward, so I'm happy to consider that and to look into that further. You touched on some policies that you're going to bring forward for COP26 in relation to emissions reduction. Given that it's only a few weeks away, can you be natural to suggest that you will have some fairly well-formed ideas on how you're going to achieve these emissions reductions in agriculture? Can you maybe lay out exactly what those policies might be and can you rule out that that will include a reduction in the production of red meat? I'm happy to address those points. I addressed that a couple of times during the course of questions and during the debate last week, when it comes to this notion of culling livestock.  It's the nonsense last week, so it's nonsense this week, and that's not something that's being considered. In relation to the policies that are being developed, I mean, I don't think it's fair for me to prejudge the work of the implementation oversight board. As I said at the start, our first meeting will be on Monday and that will be for the board to discuss and to decide on. And you're right, the COP isn't far away and we want the group to be ambitious and, like I say, get to work and help and start delivering on emissions reductions. I know that everybody that's on that board is keen to do that and to make that work happen and to progress it. So that's why the board is meeting fortnightly. That's really to keep the impetus and to keep the drive going so that we can develop that package of funded measures in time for COP. I certainly wouldn't expect to pre-empt the decisions or the recommendations of the board, but, personally, as the cabinet secretary, do you have any suggestions on what those policies might be? Well, again, I mean, the board was set up to drive forward the recommendations of the farmer-led groups, but alongside that, we've had various reports in the interim time as well. We've had farming for 1.5, we've got to consider the climate change plan update, as well as various other reports that have been produced. So it's about, again, I can't just cherry-pick off the top of my head without discussing with the board about what are the ones that we can look to implement straight away. That will be a discussion for the board to look at on consideration of the wider recommendations and to see what work can be progressed and what work can be progressed quickly. Okay, thank you, and very lastly, Rachael. It's actually today was about this committee trying to take forward a work plan agenda, and you mentioned that the bureau would be responsible for designating which cabinet secretary and which team, civil service team, would be taking forward the bills. I mean, we've already been delayed with the programme for government by a week, so do you know when the bureau might be looking at this, because surely it's something that you would like to know as well? I mean, in relation to the committee consideration of the bill, that's what the bureau would consider, but I think that's a question that's best placed for them, as opposed to me. Have you any indication as when you will know what you're responsible for? We already know, like I say, that the bureau decides which committee will consider the various pieces of legislation. Okay, so in that sense, could you then give us a list of which bills you will be taking forward? I'll be happy to get back to the committee with more information on that, or who will be the leader on the various bits of legislation that are within the PFG. I very much appreciate the time taken today. It's my understanding that the Deputy First Minister has confirmed the Scottish Government policy for homeworking and members officials to decide on a case-by-case basis whether they should attend committees, or indeed for members to attend the chamber. Given your desire to work along with the committee, why didn't you think it was important to appear in front of the committee today? I was simply asked if I would be appearing virtually or not. It's not that I don't think it's important at all. Again, I know that this will be the first meeting and the first engagement of many that I'll have with the committee, and I look forward to working with committee members and will no doubt meet with you in person. So that's a commitment to meet with us in person in the future? Yes, of course. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that. I'd like to thank you and your officials for answering the questions. We did run over a bit, but we really appreciate it. We look forward to a constructive and a robust relationship over the next few years, so thank you very much. We'll now move into private session.