Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will pick up on that last point about using the Scottish Government’s resource as best as you can and in collaboration with other academic institutes.

As Rhoda Grant mentioned, we visited the Scottish Association for Marine Science—SAMS—which does incredible work on ocean systems, climate change, marine conservation, aquaculture and food security. I have not visited the marine directorate laboratory, but Rhoda Grant and other colleagues have mentioned the challenging situation in Aberdeen. SAMS is an absolutely contrasting experience to that, from what I hear.

No one doubts the team of scientists in the marine directorate science division; they are doing a good job, but in a challenging situation. People at SAMS asked us whether they could be brought more closely in and whether more of the Scottish Government’s resource could be used in that collaborative way. Our meeting with SAMS was impressive. We saw many of its facilities. I know that the Scottish Government marine directorate brings in SAMS from time to time, but it is looking for an opportunity to bring some of its academic brilliance into the mix. It has an incredible offer on the west coast of Scotland, and a lot of good work is being done there.

You referred to inshore fisheries pilots. To be clear, which ones did you have in mind?

Have you done any work to look at the IFCA model in England? A lot of people seem to point to it as a really valuable, useful model.

Is that not a slippery slope? Open Seas won, and the case was about asking the Government to uphold the obligations that are in the legislation on our seas. Surely that should have been accepted and responded to in a positive and constructive way, rather than being appealed.

Thank you, convener—I have a number of questions in that area. We heard from the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society that,

“Cuts to the Agricultural Transformation Fund ... and Agricultural Reform Programme ... have reduced the scope of Government to provide either capital or resource funding to help the farming sector to prepare for change and or derisk trialling new ventures and initiatives.”

I would be interested to hear from you, cabinet secretary, whether you believe that that is the case and what you are going to be doing in the upcoming budget round to encourage, rather than constrain, innovation.

It is great to hear that there has been such a tremendous uptake of the agricultural transformation fund, for example, and I hear your point about the ability to move funding from one budget line to another to cover those applications. I also hear your point about not knowing what your quantum is for next year’s budget. However, will you take the enthusiasm from the farmers and land managers who are applying for that funding and put that into your thinking for the upcoming budgets?

The level of detail in the budget lines has also been brought to the committee’s attention, in that there is not enough detail to allow for robust analysis. For example, RSPB Scotland stated that

“due to a lack of transparency it is difficult to judge what cuts to the Agriculture Transformation Fund and Agricultural Reform Programme will realistically mean, as there is simply not enough information on what exactly such budget lines are spent on. This is important information for external stakeholders who are looking for detail on what spending changes in these areas could mean for activities such as soil testing, slurry storage and carbon audits.”

You talked about carbon audits, cabinet secretary. Going beyond that, could we get a bit more detail? I think that we need level 4 data, and we need a bit more detail to be in the public domain in a user-friendly format.

Yes, indeed. How do we un-bury that? How do we unearth it, bring it to the surface and ensure that that information is really clear for people?

Good afternoon, minister. Thank you for joining us.

I want to clear something up on reporting. The policy note states that there will be a requirement for an annual implementation report on the old Scottish rural development programme schemes only in 2025 and that, thereafter, any reporting will be wrapped up in the rural support plan provisions that are set in the legislation.

My understanding is that we will not have a rural support plan until the autumn or winter of 2025, and that reporting on that will be required at the end of each five-year period. That means that we will not have that reporting until at least 2030. Is there no requirement for reporting on any scheme that will continue in the interim, such as LFASS or the agri-environment climate scheme? If so, why is that? Should there not be on-going reporting?

Thanks for that, but the reporting is connected to the rural support plan and we will not get that until the autumn or winter of 2025. The requirement is for reporting at the end of each five-year plan period. Does that not mean that we will have all the schemes but we will not see regular reporting?