(S5O-05136) Brexit (Economic Impacts)

7. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding managing the economic impacts of Brexit. (S5O-05136)

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture (Fiona Hyslop): The Scottish Government is deeply concerned by emerging evidence that Brexit is having a severe impact on the ability of Scottish businesses to trade effectively and competitively with the European Union, with lasting consequences for our economy.

Scottish Government ministers remain in regular contact with UK ministers about the economic impact of Brexit and are pressing for urgent support for businesses that are being adversely impacted. Most recently, together with UK Government ministers, I chaired a meeting of the Scottish business growth group, which heard from business, employer and employee representative organisations about the difficulties that are being caused by new trading arrangements and the need for further assistance.

Indeed, just a few hours ago, I had a similar meeting with Michael Gove and business organisations as part of the Brexit meeting series. The Scottish Government will continue to work hard to address problems and blockages where it is in our power to do so.

Stewart Stevenson: Has the cabinet secretary noted that the Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that there will be a 4 per cent drop in productivity compared with the position if we had stayed in the European Union and a temporary reduction in the first quarter of this year of some 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product? Is it now absolutely vital that the UK Government provides additional funding to the Scottish Government so that we can support the businesses that the cabinet secretary has just referred to and the workers who are employed in them?

Fiona Hyslop: Recent funding for seafood exporters and small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK is welcome, but piecemeal funding can at best provide only a temporary sticking-plaster, considering the sheer scale of the costs and losses that are emerging. We are making that very clear to the UK Government. The additional funding cannot address the core problem, which lies in the very thin nature of the deal. It is vital that the UK Government listens and responds to what we are telling it.

We hear that imports from France to the UK are down by 13 per cent, imports from Italy are down by 38 per cent and imports from Germany are down by 30 per cent, while exports from the UK to France are down by 20 per cent and exports from the UK to Italy are down by a staggering 70 per cent. It is clear that the UK Government’s trade statistics are, in addition to the statistics that we are hearing from other countries, telling it that there is a problem.

We remain ready to work with the UK Government on solutions. Productive proposals are being put forward. Its refusal to engage ignores the fact that the effects will be long lasting and dangerous for our businesses, our communities and our economy.

Presiding Officer, this is an opportunity for me to say to Stewart Stevenson that he has spoken in the Parliament very sensibly and informatively over many years and in many speeches. He has served his constituents well and has been a real driver for change, particularly on climate change. I thank him and wish him well in his retirement.

(S5O-05101) Beef Farming (Brazil Memorandum of Understanding)

4. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the potential impact on beef farming in Scotland of a memorandum of understanding with Brazil. (S5O-05101)

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing): I have previously written to the UK Government on that matter, expressing strong concerns about any increase in imported beef through the Mercosur free trade agreement.

I am aware that the UK Government struck an agreement with Brazil last October to establish a joint agriculture committee to look at sanitary standards. Unfortunately, the UK Government has not engaged with us, despite standards in Scotland being our responsibility.

It is our belief that significant quantities of imported South American beef could have a damaging effect on Scotland’s highly acclaimed beef production, potentially undermining our high regulatory standards and impacting on domestic trade. Fundamentally, I cannot and would not support any increased quota.

Stewart Stevenson: Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is not simply a matter of sanitary standards and that the importation of hormone-treated beef from pastures in felled rainforest being shipped here to compete with our premium hormone-free Scotch beef is problematic on several levels, including that of climate change?

Fergus Ewing: Yes. I have said time and again that we would not tolerate any trade deal that allowed imports of hormone-treated beef. The Trade and Agriculture Commission, who I met on Monday, recommend that any trading partners wishing to import into the United Kingdom shall demonstrate equivalent production standards. That assurance from Tim Smith, the chief executive, was welcome. That should be implemented across all the UK’s trade deals, ultimately banning the import of hormone-treated meat.

(S5O-05095) Agriculture (Climate Change)

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): Does the minister agree that the additional funding of £5 million in the budget for agri-environment measures is very welcome? Can he outline other measures in the budget that will support our farmers to adapt their production methods so that they are more sustainable in the long term?

The Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment (Ben Macpherson): A third of common agricultural policy schemes provide funding to support farmers, crofters and land managers in addressing climate change and achieving wider environmental benefits. The 2020-21 budget includes £40 million to support agricultural transformation. That will be supplemented by the additional £5 million of capital funding.

To support that transition, there is an additional £3.9 million for the Farm Advisory Service to ensure continued provision of high-quality advice. After a number of years spent working for a fairer allocation for Scotland, the Bew funds, totalling £25.7 million, will also be provided to farmers, crofters and land managers to aid transition in 2021-22.

(S5O-05079) Social Security Scotland (Client Survey)

7. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report “Social Security Scotland Client Survey: 2018-2020”. (S5O-05079)

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People (Shirley-Anne Somerville): I welcome the report and, in particular, its key finding that 90 per cent of clients who responded said that their overall experience was either “very good” or “good”. It is a credit to all Social Security Scotland staff that they were given that endorsement by clients, who were surveyed last year at a time when the agency’s services and staff were also coping with the serious disruptions caused by coronavirus. The agency was established on the footing that its systems should be designed with the people of Scotland and be based on their evidence. The report demonstrates the Scottish Government’s determination to live up to that commitment.

Of course, there will always be room for improvement, but the report’s findings, including that the overwhelming majority of respondents—around 87 per cent—said they were treated with dignity, fairness and respect, are clear evidence of two things. First, they show where we are on our goal to deliver a Scottish social security system that has those values at its heart and that succeeds. Secondly, they show how far we have come on moving away from perceptions of the system operated by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Stewart Stevenson: The results of the survey are hugely encouraging and represent a welcome departure from the system that the United Kingdom Government operates, which the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights described as

“punitive, mean-spirited and often callous”.

What lessons does the cabinet secretary think the UK Government could learn from Scotland’s social security system? Does she believe that people in Scotland should not be forced to accept toxic Tory policies?

Shirley-Anne Somerville: What we have achieved in social security in Scotland is testament to the hard work that has gone on both within the Government and, importantly, with our key stakeholders and all the individuals with lived experience who have taken part in the process, so that we could deliver the system that we are now delivering on.

I should pay tribute to my predecessor in this role, Jeane Freeman—not only because she is sitting close to me in the chamber but because of her work in this portfolio before I took over, which laid the groundwork for the results that I am announcing today. The whole of Government can reflect on what can be done when we have lived experience at the heart of our policy making. That is a lesson not only for the Scottish Government but for all public agencies across the UK. It is the right way and the best way in which to make policy. I, for one, am very pleased that Ms Freeman took the opportunity to ensure that our social security system had that in its very bedrock when she set it up.

(S5O-04986) Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit (Uplift)

2. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding retaining the £20 uplift to universal credit and working tax credit. (S5O-04986)

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People (Shirley-Anne Somerville): The Scottish Government has written to the UK Government on five occasions with requests to make the £20 per week uplift permanent and to extend it to legacy benefits. Most recently, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance wrote to the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27 January, calling on the UK Government to announce the retention and expansion of the uplift in the March budget. Analysis by the Scottish Government indicates that cutting that support would move 60,000 people, including 20,000 children, into relative poverty in Scotland. We will continue to urge the UK Government to make the required changes to ensure that the benefit process works for the people who need support and not against them.

Stewart Stevenson: The Resolution Foundation said that, if the uplift is cut, 1.2 million people in the UK will fall into relative poverty. The cabinet secretary has just highlighted that 20,000 children in Scotland would be affected. Does she therefore agree that, notwithstanding silence or failure to respond to five communications, each and every one of us should make every possible effort to draw the UK Government’s attention to this catastrophe that is affecting too many of our young people and families in need right across the UK, particularly in Scotland?

Shirley-Anne Somerville: I agree with Stewart Stevenson that we all need to make every effort to persuade the UK Government about that. We have consistently called for the change, but I am also encouraged by the calls from across the political spectrum and third parties. For example, the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, which is co-chaired by a Conservative member of Parliament, this week published a report calling on the UK Government to maintain the £20 per week uplift and to scrap the benefit cap. There is wide support for that, because people recognise and understand the impact that not doing it will have on adults and children right across the UK. With that level of support, I hope that the UK Government will do the right thing and change tack.

(S5T-02617) Fishing Communities (Compensation)

1. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding compensation for fishing communities, in light of the disruption at ports since the end of the European Union exit transition period. (S5T-02617)

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing): No substantive discussion on a compensation scheme for Scottish fishing communities has taken place, and it is simply unacceptable for the UK Government to launch such a scheme without consulting the Scottish Government. The deal that was reached with the EU demonstrated the UK Government’s profound lack of knowledge of, or concern for, Scottish seafood interests. The industry will rightly be concerned that delivery of the compensation scheme will be in the same vein. However, this Government will continue to stand up for Scottish fishing, and we will do everything that we can to ensure that the compensation scheme reflects the real and lasting damage that has been done to the Scottish seafood sector.

Stewart Stevenson: Right now, shellfish exports are being spoiled beyond usefulness because barriers exist where there were none a month ago. When does the cabinet secretary, or when do his colleagues, expect to have interaction with the UK Government about proper compensation funds from that body, which would keep afloat the many small businesses that are vital part of distant coastal communities?

Fergus Ewing: On several occasions, in representing the Scottish Government at the EU exit operations committee, I have made it clear that the UK Government—having sought Brexit, delivered it in a cack-handed way and ignored the advice of the Scottish Government and of industry to seek a grace period—is now responsible, and solely so, for the losses that have arisen as a result of its failings. I have made it clear that compensation is required, including early last week at an XO meeting. I have repeated that call when attending other XO meetings on behalf of the Scottish Government.

To date, the UK Government has not given the Scottish Government any details of the package. Yesterday, in an apparently off-the-cuff remark, the Prime Minister indicated that the package for the whole UK industry might be as little as £23 million. To put that in perspective, I point out that last year the Scottish Government delivered to the Scottish sector alone Covid compensation and support of £23.5 million.

However, I expect that the UK Government will need to start communicating with us on the matter, and I have called upon it so to do.

Stewart Stevenson: Today in Peterhead, there were but a few hundred boxes of fish in a market that was built to process 10,000 boxes each day. The quotas for the next six years involve no meaningful expansion of catching opportunity—indeed, they include some critical reductions. That is due in no small part to Westminster incompetence and deliberately chosen trade-offs. What options exist to remedy that for fishermen in the north-east, across Scotland and, for that matter, across the UK?

Fergus Ewing: The reduced prices and reduced availability of fish at market are, sadly, direct results of the Brexit boorach. I stress that my imperative—my number 1 priority—is to make sure that we in Scotland, working with local authorities, with Food Standards Scotland and with DFDS and other hubs, resolve the difficulties as far as is within our power. I have had detailed discussions, of course, with the leading stakeholders in the fishing sector across the whole of Scotland, and will continue to do so.

It is difficult for me to see that the problems can accurately be described as “teething problems”, which is the phrase that UK ministers use. I fear that the problems are more serious and deep seated. Indeed, there are so many of them—57 varieties, as I told the XO committee last week—that it seems to me that the UK should seek a derogation from the EU in relation to the requirements. Probably the only reason why it does not do so is that the request might be rejected because the UK Government has forfeited goodwill in the EU.

(S5O-04919) 26th Conference of the Parties (Preparations)

7. Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what preparations it is making for its participation in COP26. (S5O-04919)

The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (Roseanna Cunningham): Beyond the operational readiness that I set out in response to Anas Sarwar, we are taking action across the board to prepare for COP26 around our agreed themes of just transition and people. We have recently published a draft public engagement strategy and we are partnering with Glasgow Science Centre on a community engagement programme. We were honoured with our appointment as cochair of the under2 coalition and we are using that to drive momentum and ambition globally. We will also shortly take the novel approach of publishing “Scotland’s contribution to the Paris Agreement—an indicative NDC”, focusing on Scotland’s worldleading targets and summarising our plans to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

Stewart Stevenson: At previous COPs, Scottish ministers have been a formal part of the United Kingdom delegation—indeed, I was, on more than one occasion. Is that expected to be the case at COP26?

Roseanna Cunningham: Yes—I have been a formal part of the UK delegation in each year since I was appointed to this job. We have been consistently represented at the COPs since 2009 and we expect that to be the case at COP26. As I have already referenced, we will demonstrate our leadership at COP26 when, as co-chair of the under2 coalition, we will drive momentum and climate ambition on the global stage.

Statement: Managing Scotland’s Fisheries

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP): This morning, as has been the case for many days, Peterhead market, which is Europe’s biggest white-fish market, was eerily quiet. On the radio this morning, David Duguid—a minister at the Scotland Office—was attacked by a representative of the industry and called a liar, which he rejected, as we might expect. I also gather that, on Christmas eve, Victoria Prentis spent time preparing for Christmas rather than reading the agreement to which she was party. My question is about the next time that the cabinet secretary meets representatives of the UK Government. Does he expect Victoria Prentis or David Duguid to remain in office for long? The industry is clear that it is time for them to go.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism (Fergus Ewing):: They are not my responsibility. The important thing is that we work to sort out the problems as best we can. I have been doing my best to do that. Later this afternoon, I will attend another meeting with Mr Gove to that end.

Mr Stevenson referred to the deal that has been done, which has resulted in the loss of the Hague preference and in extra quota of paper fish only—in other words, extra quota that will never be of any practical benefit. The Scottish industry has lost the option of buying or swapping extra quota. We have lost the negotiating leverage that we had, because European Union vessels have automatic access to our grounds. In five years’ time, we also face a retaliatory clause because, if the EU does not get what it wants, it can start imposing tariffs on aquaculture and other sectors. This is a rotten deal.

To answer Mr Stevenson’s question, I think that fishermen expect a bit of honesty and for just one Tory parliamentarian to acknowledge that this is a bad deal. I have not seen any sign that any Tory parliamentarian, whether at Holyrood or at Westminster, has the guts to be honest with the Scottish fishermen whom they have betrayed.