Seòmar agus comataidhean

My questions are on the same theme, so I will not introduce them. I was interested to hear about the lack of a socioeconomic impact assessment. We are all committed to a just transition. Can we have one without the other? If you do not know the impact of what you are doing, how can you transition?

Okay. Thank you.

We seem to have focused on fishing and fish farming today, but a lot more is going on in the marine environment. We hear more about a squeeze on fishing and things such as offshore energy. Should we look at those? I am sorry: I am asking two questions in one.

I ask people to turn their attention to schedule 1, which sets out an awful lot of the detail. Does it cover all the purposes for which support will be provided as required to replace the CAP and, indeed, provide for a new agricultural policy for us? Does it meet people’s aspirations for the new policy?

I am not asking everyone to read schedule 1, but it basically highlights all the things that could receive support under the bill.

I have an even more technical question—sorry about that. Do we need more detail on how the powers in schedule 1 will be used? Also, should there be greater scrutiny of how the new powers—for example, to cap payments—are used?

Nobody has mentioned scrutiny. This is an enabling bill, and a lot of the powers in it relate to where the money is going to come from. Folk might reflect on whether the scrutiny provisions in the bill are enough and write to the committee on that. That issue might not be at the forefront of everybody’s mind, but we need to have adequate scrutiny in the bill over the powers that will shape the policy going forward.

I have a final, small question. We are looking at alignment with the EU CAP. I am picking up that people are broadly supportive of that, but is there any area where that would not be desirable?

If someone breached scheme rules, would the money be recovered?

I will push you a little further on the “high-quality food” definition. What is produced as part of our agriculture that would fall foul of the definition? I do not understand why you have not just referred to the “production of food”. Why is it

“the production of high-quality food”?

What would be omitted from that definition? What is the purpose?

In this instance, the public interest means abiding by the rules or the best use of public money.

In what other ways could the public interest be determined?