Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for those comments, cabinet secretary. On multiyear funding, I have spoken to a number of bodies about the issue and I know that it was a massive ask, not least from the National Farmers Union Scotland. Can you not just put in a caveat?

You are absolutely right in saying that, if you are going to have a five-year or seven-year—whatever it will be—ask of the agriculture industry in the rural support plan, we need to be protected as we move forward with that. Is there a reason why you could not say, “The Scottish Government will promise to deliver this funding for five years, with the caveat that we get the money from the United Kingdom Government”?

Thank you, Mr Burgess.

At the moment, there is a lot of talk in Europe about bureaucracy, red tape and the depth of the application process. I suppose that I want to make a shout-out. I ask you to consider ensuring that, whatever grant mechanism you come up with, the application process is not a very complicated one that new entrants have to spend thousands of pounds in consultants on in order to access the grant.

I have a quick practical point, cabinet secretary, for confirmation about the AECS. One of the slight barriers to accessing the scheme that I have heard of in the past is capital costs for things such as fencing, for example, if you want to manage an area of ground for grazing grass that is, at the moment, one big field. Is there an ability to access capital works, if needed, in this year’s application process?

If I have got it right, we have a target of planting 200,000 hectares by 2032, but the work is only about 25 per cent complete. From the emails that I have received, I know that the industry took quite a big hit last year. As the committee’s briefing papers note, and as I have heard from the industry, some of the big companies are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. It is not cheap to put in the processes to extract or grow timber, and it takes a long time.

One graph that I have seen shows that production will increase slightly over the next few years and then drop off significantly. Potentially, that situation was made worse by last year’s significant budget cuts. In hindsight, do you regret the fact that the money was cut from the budget, given that that has contributed to the industry’s current lack of confidence?

On that point, cabinet secretary, I go back to the convener’s point about the timeframe for changes. Jackie Baillie has written to you. Would there be the option of further engagement following the passing of the regulations, perhaps during the spring or summer, with the bodies that have responded, including the one that Rhoda Grant mentioned, and with Jackie Baillie’s constituents, to ensure that, by this time next year, we are all absolutely on the same page about how data comes into the marine directorate and to ensure that nothing gets lost? Would you commit to ensuring that such engagement happens in the next year?

Good morning, and thank you for your helpful remarks. There is no doubt in my mind that salmon is an iconic species and one that we want to protect. I had not seen the regulations before, because I am pretty new to the committee, but I had an email ping in about them while Dr Middlemas was speaking.

As has been touched on, there seem to be some issues with how we collect and utilise the data. For clarity, I ask you to explain what the promise is. If we agree to the regulations today, how do we improve the data collection and ensure the right outcomes for our rivers with respect to closed periods and so on?

Can I ask a question on the back of that one, convener?

This theme is of interest to me, and I have been doing a wee bit of research into it. I am getting increasingly worried about the marine directorate and its future. We heard this morning about issues in relation to salmon, and I am hearing lots of conversations from the fishing industry about what the directorate is doing. I was not a member of this committee at the time of the visit to the facilities, but I heard that they are not in a particularly good state. All of that leads me to worry that the marine directorate is not in a position to deliver the functions that are critical for Scotland. On top of that, it had a budget cut last year and has had another budget cut this year. How do you address the concerns that the marine directorate’s capacity to deliver its functions simply is not possible within the context of a budget cut?

I thought that what we heard from Jackie Baillie was quite telling. I was not aware of some of that information, and now my mind is whizzing. I would like to hear a response to that, if possible, because I wonder what take the cabinet secretary and her officials have on it.

The last point that was made was particularly interesting. Does the Government have the capacity to withdraw the instrument, and quickly? It is not meant to come into place until 1 March, I think, so is there a possibility of withdrawing it, making a quick change and then resubmitting it? The committee might well have the ability to reconsider it, but the convener will know more about that than I do. I would be very interested in hearing a response on that.

I have a very quick follow-up question. I do not disagree with your point: we should be looking at new and emerging technologies and how they can help in all sectors. However, can I double check that there is money in the budget to do that? Are you confident that the marine directorate has the funding to look into using drone technology, whether water based or airborne?