Seòmar agus comataidhean

The fund is under development, and we are working on what improvements can be made to it. I cannot remember the exact scheme specifications off the top of my head. George Burgess might have that information to hand. Again, I am happy to provide that information after the meeting. I know that, because of the means testing element and who could apply, it was quite difficult for people to access the fund. Obviously, we want to improve that where we can.

Obviously, it is disappointing for a lot of people that there will no longer be that fund. It is another area that can be improved and in which the process can be made better for people. The work that we do on that over the coming few months and financial year will be important as we seek to make improvements, building on the feedback that we have received and the various criticisms that were made of that fund.

However, in saying that, I know that the scheme’s withdrawal will impact a lot of businesses because that is investment that they may not be able to undertake otherwise. For example, I recently visited the Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group, in Bellshill, which was awarded funding through that scheme to upgrade its freezing facilities. The group is a co-operative for mussel and oyster farmers across Scotland, and such facilities are a huge investment for them, so it is important that they get that funding.

For other businesses, the issue has been energy efficiency. This year, more than any other, given the increased costs that people face, any investment that can be made in energy efficiency will be welcomed, and we want to help with that as much as possible. If businesses are not able to undertake that work, the result will be increased costs, especially given the way in which energy costs are heading. We want to offer support with that, but we need to make sure that we are doing it in the right way and in a way that works for businesses that apply to the scheme. It is important that we take the time to get it right.

No doubt, there are many challenges in finding the resource that we need to deal with that, which is why the uplift in funding will be critical. It is a really exciting time, but it is a really challenging time as well—there is no getting around that.

There is the expansion in offshore renewables—I am looking at Rachael Hamilton, because we attended an event with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, and we have talked about the spatial squeeze. We want to roll out the HPMA network as well. We might think that we have a huge marine resource and asset, but, when all those considerations are factored in, it becomes quite a cluttered landscape. We are trying to manage it as best we can through the work that we are doing on the blue economy vision and the focus that we have put on the outcomes there, as well as in the work that will be taken forward through the national marine plan. That is where the extra resource will be important in helping us to deal with all those issues.

Absolutely. One of the key elements that will make a difference and will really help us relates to the roll-out of remote electronic monitoring. The committee will, no doubt, be aware of our consultation on that. We are still going through the responses, and we will publish the outcome of that consultation and our response to it in due course. We talked about the roll-out of remote electronic monitoring and the roll-out of the vessel monitoring system, which we want to see across all vessels by the end of this parliamentary term. I will keep the committee updated on that as we publish that information. That extra intelligence is critical.

I do not know whether Iain Wallace wants to touch a bit more on the risk-based system. We can receive thousands of reports in a year about particular areas. From my experience of some of the cases that I am contacted about, people might see a vessel in an MPA, but that does not always indicate that illegal activity is taking place—it depends on the protections that are in place in that MPA. Sometimes, we receive reports, but what is happening on the ground can be different. Of course, there are occasions when that is most definitely not the case. I imagine that, if particular areas are at risk, that is where the marine protection vessels will be tasked with patrolling. We also have aerial surveillance, which helps with some of that.

I do not know whether Iain Wallace wants to go into any further detail or to expand on that.

Absolutely. I am happy to give some examples of that. I touched on one of the businesses that I visited in relation to some of the improvements that it has been making in its processing capabilities. The fund is being used for a wide variety of things. Some projects that have been taken forward have involved innovation and specific developments in aquaculture. The business that I visited in relation to the scheme was working on increasing its freezing capacity at the facility. I know that, after applying for funding, some fish processing businesses have been awarded funding for pieces of filleting equipment to make their businesses more efficient. Businesses have also applied for and been awarded funding for energy efficiency measures, which will have a huge impact, particularly in this climate.

I am happy to do that. The cost crisis is affecting everybody across Scotland, but it is particularly acute for people who live on our islands. That was brought into sharp focus by the figures that some of the local authorities have produced. Beatrice Wishart will know this better than me and will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the work that was done in Shetland showed that people would need to earn about £104,000 a year to not be in fuel poverty. That is shocking.

We knew that we had to do something over and above to address the particular issues that our island communities face, which is why we introduced the islands emergency fund. We have provided £1.4 million through that. It is being distributed on a 100 per cent population basis, as determined by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We wanted to make sure that the fund could be accessed as easily as possible, so we tried to minimise the criteria that need to be met when people apply for it. We want to make sure that it gets to where it needs to go and that it gets out the door as quickly as possible. Working with local authorities has been a key part of that.

An example is that, in the Shetland islands, that funding is being used to provide breakfasts to 14,000 children and young people. The plan is to run that until March. Again, I am happy to come back to the committee with more information on how the funding is being used by other local authorities if you would find that helpful.

Yes. I will update Parliament and provide more information on that next week. However, we have £3 million allocated for that in the budget this year. The work has been progressing well. There are initial steps that we have to get in place. First, we will look at carbon audits, and we want the climate action plans to be produced on the back of that.

It is central to all the work on carbon-neutral islands that this is not something that we are foisting on communities. We very much want it to be community based, so we are working with communities on each of the six islands. I will be happy to provide more information on that when I update Parliament next week.

Absolutely. I suppose that you are asking how we can develop a project pipeline. I know how challenging it has been, particularly given the feedback that the committee received in previous evidence sessions.

Ultimately, we will not be able to run a multi-annual fund, because we only get the annual allocations. What we are working to do, as I have said in relation to some other schemes, is to provide certainty and as much clarity as we can about what is coming. Some of the improvements that we have planned for the islands programme should help with that. We are actively looking to see how we can do that over the coming years.

We are engaging in that work with the Scottish Futures Trust. I think that the committee received a lot of positive feedback about that engagement, given the SFT’s expertise. We are working with councils where projects have not been successful previously. That on-going work and development will be key going forward. Ultimately, as I said, it will be an annual allocation, but we want to try to provide as much certainty as we can.

That option is still open. However, we are adding the additional option that they can be sold as defrosted so that there is not an impact on retailers and their ability to store and then sell those products.

I thank the committee for inviting me to speak about the regulations, which allow the marketing of certain poultry meat in defrosted condition for a temporary period between 28 November to 31 December.

Regulation 1308/2013—the single common market organisation, or CMO, regulation—makes provision about poultry meat marketing standards. In particular, it stipulates that

“Poultrymeat and poultrymeat preparations shall be marketed in”

only

“fresh ... frozen”

or

“quick-frozen”

condition, and part 1 of schedule 1 to the Poultrymeat (Scotland) Regulations 2011 states that contravention of that requirement is an offence.

Due to the current threat from avian influenza, some retailers, as well as the larger turkey processors—which, together, account for about 90 per cent of poultry meat production—contacted the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request temporary approval for poultry meat to be frozen and then sold as a defrosted product. The United Kingdom and Welsh Governments have indicated that that will be permitted during the period from 28 November to 31 December.

The Scottish Government sought the views of the Scottish industry, and we wish to address the threat of market disturbance to the poultry meat sector by permitting that in Scotland, too. The instrument therefore temporarily amends the single CMO regulation and the Poultrymeat (Scotland) Regulations 2011 to allow certain poultry meat to be marketed as defrosted. In Scotland, that will not only safeguard domestic supply; it will be of assistance to the industry in mitigating potential loss of income due to any large AI outbreak.

It is important to note that the change does not represent a food safety risk. Under the food information to consumers regulation, any defrosted poultry meat must comply with the labelling regulations, which require that

“the name of the food shall be accompanied by the designation ‘defrosted’”

on the label.

Of course, the marketing of poultry meat as defrosted is not mandatory, as poultry meat can still be marketed as fresh, frozen or quick-frozen during the period. However, those in the industry will be given the option to sell defrosted poultry meat if they so wish.

A full public consultation has not taken place due to the urgent need to temporarily amend the legislation. However, we contacted those in the industry to inform them of the proposal, and we invited comments about it. We received one positive comment and no negative comments. We have also liaised with Food Standards Scotland, which has informed enforcement authorities on behalf of the Scottish Government.

I hope that the information that I have provided to the committee is helpful in setting out the rationale for the instrument. I am happy to take any questions that committee members might have.