Seòmar agus comataidhean

Both Rachael Hamilton and the convener talked about the reduction in livestock levels that we are aiming for. However, the cabinet secretary has already made it quite clear that there is no plan to reduce the suckler cow numbers in the country. I want to put that on the record.

A point was made earlier about the policy that we are looking to develop. In Scotland, the conditionality will be 50:50, whereas the UK scheme is all about public funds for public goods. My question is probably for Beatrice Morrice. We see the farming community as being critical to achieving our net zero target, and food production is a critical public good, because we need food. We need a resilient food and drink sector and we need the primary producers. How can we get the farming community to enthusiastically take up the policy? Is the 50:50 ratio is acceptable to the farming community? Farmers want to produce food, but they accept that we need to do things differently. How do you feel the policy will go down with the community?

The question of profitability and resilience in the sector is a very loaded one, because there are so many different sectors, and profitability and resilience will be different across each sector.

I will come to Davy McCracken first, because I want to look at where the profitability and resilience will come from in hill and upland farming. We have already touched on what you called planting trees, rather than forestry—I am glad that you did, because I would like us to get away from the conflict between trees and farming. There has to be a way to integrate them. I can see real opportunities for us to develop a timber industry that farmers could be part of. There are bound to be jobs that can be created out of a timber industry. In addition, rather than having sheds, maybe we could have woodland. I would like to explore some of those issues and how we can tie that in with making sure that we have profitability and resilience in the upland sector.

Can you clarify that? Are you talking about getting support to those farms that are already doing the things that they have been asked to do over the past number of years and continuing to recognise that?

The question is probably directed at Stephen Young and Christopher Nicholson. Earlier, I had a question in my head about tenants’ fears about support for tree planting, peat restoration and stuff like that. We have kind of skittered around that. I would like to understand the relationship between the landowner—who might be investing in planting trees while taking support from the Government to do so—and the tenant, and how that affects the tenant. When I talk about tenants, I am talking not just about pre-1991 tenants but about people who have long-term leases. Is there equity in costs and the funding that comes into a farm as a result of that? How do you differentiate? If the tenant has a 20-year lease but the trees will not be harvested for 30 years, how will that work?

We are looking at a 50:50 policy. Would it be a harder sell to have complete conditionality on public funds for public goods, as there is in the UK scheme, where there is no mention of food production at all? I am not asking you to be political. We want the farming community to go with the policy and embrace it. Will it be easier to get it to embrace a policy in which farmers are still regarded as food producers or a policy where they are regarded as—I am quoting—“nothing but park keepers”?

Okay. Thank you.

My second question is about St Johnstone Football Club, which travelled to Turkey, played a game and came home. I have constituents who have properties in Turkey and want to go over to them to deal with issues. They have said that elite sportspeople can travel, but they cannot. Is there a way for people to travel safely to Turkey, which is on the red list? Why was it okay for St Johnstone to go there? I am not saying that St Johnstone should not have gone there, but the complaint from constituents is that there is hypocrisy. Can you give us details about why that was the case?

Thank you very much. That was pretty much the answer that we gave to my constituents. I am glad that you have confirmed the position.

The final issue that I want to ask about is seasonal agricultural workers. What are the current restrictions on seasonal agricultural workers who come into the country? Are those restrictions adequate?

I thank the panellists very much for coming to the meeting.

For the understanding of people who are watching this, we are talking about international travel—that is what the session is based on—and a lot of the regulations that we are speaking about are retrospective. The convener and I, as new members, were not here when many of the regulations were put in place, so my questions are retrospective, too. One question in particular is aimed more at Jason Leitch than it is at the cabinet secretary.

Where are we in relation to seafarers and oil workers? I ask about them separately, because there seem to be different regulations, depending on when they come back. I have constituents who are oil workers who are asking particularly about going to the North Sea. They go to the Norwegian sector—to an environment that is among the safest in the world—and they are tested before they go out, when they arrive and before they come back. However, they were still required to self-isolate for 10 days. Is that still the case? If it is, why?

What is the position with seafarers? I understand that, given that they come back from multiple parts of the world, the situation for them might be slightly more tricky, but will you give us an update on their position?

I will have another couple of questions after those questions have been answered.

You gave a broad outline of what the new agriculture bill that will be introduced is about. What do you hope to achieve and what is its purpose, specifically in relation to food production? In addition, what will the conditionality on support look like in relation to the balance between environmental benefits and food production? What do you hope to achieve with the new agricultural subsidy system?

You have said that there will be a 50:50 balance regarding environmental benefits and food production. My understanding is that that approach differs radically from that in the UK Agriculture Act 2020. If we have a different agricultural policy in Scotland, does that put us on a collision course with the UK Government and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020?