Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given the significance of the carbon-neutral islands project for Scotland’s net zero ambitions, I am interested to hear about the thinking behind the reductions in the budget from last year to this year.

Having met some of the amazing young development officers, I can see how important their roles are and the challenges that they face because of the one-year funding cycles. I had a conversation with one of the officers, who described the situation as not being sustainable for them because they are making major life considerations, but they are not sure if they will be employed. It is important that we are clear with those people, who are doing incredible work on amazing projects, what the future will be for them.

I want to ask about the agricultural transformation fund, which has received a further cut and has now been allocated £3 million in resource funding rather than the previous £5 million in capital funding. I am interested in understanding the reason for the reduction, the thinking behind moving the funding from capital to resource and what it will be spent on.

From talking to farmers, I know that it is quite tricky to get funding from AECS. I have heard of farmers who almost meet all the requirements but miss it by a few. You are talking about how we urgently need to get farmers to move towards climate and biodiversity mitigation, but you have a fund that makes it difficult to get funding—farmers miss out by a couple of points. Will the new scheme take that on board and be more user-friendly to apply to? We need to open the floodgates for farmers to get on board with such schemes.

I want to thank the cabinet secretary for going over again in great detail the £61 million that was removed from the agricultural budget in 2021-23.

My question is this: despite the overall cut in the rural affairs budget, there was a 5.2 per cent increase in the community-led local development budget due to anticipated demand. I would be interested in hearing what the thinking is as to where that money will be applied and also whether regional land-use partnerships will feature in that, given that they are doing such important landscape-scale work.

I have a comment on the Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2023. I agree with the SSI but I would like to note something for the record.

A majority of respondents to the consultation on changes to river grading want urgent action to be taken on other pressures on wild salmon, including aquaculture, habitat degradation, low water quality and pollution. A Just Economics report attributed the deaths of 71,000 wild salmon in Scotland each year to fish farming. As we are allowing increased catching and retention of wild salmon in seven rivers, it is even more important that we act on the primary pressures that are affecting wild salmon populations, including salmon farming, as has been called for.

So, the money is in a different budget, but you are spending it on the same thing.

So, you moved it previously into capital to do the slurry work and now you are bringing it back into resource. What do you expect it to be spent on, now that it is in resource?

I have a quick supplementary on AECS. From what I understand, AECS will be phased out and a new scheme will be put in place. Is that correct?

The budget documents state that the marine directorate is delivering savings through recruitment controls, by maximising income streams and by achieving greater operational efficiencies. I am interested in what is meant by “maximising income streams” in this context.

Could you say a bit more about the recruitment controls and how the directorate achieves greater operational efficiencies?