Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that I alluded to that point in some of my responses to the initial questions. We cannot just consider my portfolio spend in isolation, because of the wider work that is happening across Government to help with the cost of living crisis. The budget for those interventions—whether those are through discretionary housing payments or what we are doing in relation to fuel poverty—will come from different portfolios. However, those interventions will still have an impact across rural Scotland and in our island communities and we are trying to deliver them as best we can.

There were a number of factors in that regard, some of which we discussed, I think, with the committee in my first appearance before you to talk about the budget. Around £20 million of funding was financial transactions and loans, and we had not been able to use financial transactions—I am sure that Sheetal Mehra will keep me right. If the Government is to offer loans, we need to do so on a commercial basis, and it simply was not possible to spend that funding. I cannot draw down allocations that I am not able to spend.

I have outlined the significant constraints that we face in relation to capital. I know that it was of great concern to the industry that the capital budget that was available for agriculture transformation was lower than it had been in previous years. There were all sorts of issues tied into that. For example, there were huge delays in getting equipment. There were huge backlogs. Those were not anyone’s fault—they were not the fault of industry or Government. We had to ensure that we used the resource that we had as best we could.

We regularly raise concerns, particularly in relation to areas in which we do not have the powers to deal with some of the most pressing issues. We have done that through the action group that I mentioned, and we participate in an interministerial group with the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government. I have also raised a number of those on-going issues with my new counterpart in the UK Government.

The task force’s recommendations are important. We are in the process of delivering some of the ones that are within our areas of responsibility, such as the establishment of a food security unit and the corralling of some of our business support to make it easier for people to access. However, the task force identified a number of actions that are the responsibility of the UK Government, and I have written to the UK Government on those to press to get that meaningful action taken.

There is a lot in there. I hope that I am able to address all the points, but I am sure that you will come back if I do not do so.

On the workforce, we have had the extra £10 million of investment this year in recognition of the scale of what Marine Scotland has to deliver in relation to the ScotWind process—in trying to ensure that there are the planning and consenting resources that are needed—and of our ambitious environmental agenda.

Of course, I have to work within the parameters that I have. If I had an unlimited budget, it would be great to invest more money in more vessels for enforcement. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case. We have three marine protection vessels and two aircraft to help us with that enforcement, and we take a risk-based approach to the vast marine area that they have to cover. I reiterate and re-emphasise that, if anyone witnesses any activity that they deem to be illegal or have concerns about, they should feed that back to us, so that we can analyse it and see how best to allocate our resources.

I recognise those concerns but, again, I have to work within the parameters that I have. I have talked about how significant the challenges in the portfolio are. That applies particularly to our capital spend, which is what is involved in our enforcement, so I cannot make a promise to the committee that we would look to enhance that at this moment, because of the sheer levels of costs that would be involved and the significant pressures that are already on the capital budget.

Absolutely. I go back to what we set out in our vision for agriculture, in which we focus on food production. It is about lowering emissions to their lowest possible level and doing what we can to enhance nature. I think that the three issues are intertwined.

Given all the challenges that we now have, food security has jumped right up the agenda. That is why we undertook the work with the task force and why we have committed to maintaining direct payments. We know that food production is vital. Ultimately, the £51 million is to support the transition to net zero and to support people going along that journey. Many farmers and crofters are already undertaking the types of practices that we want to see. We want to ensure that everybody comes along on the journey, which is where the work of the ARIOB has been really important. It is helping to shape incentives that will, we hope, work for industry; developing claims processes that are simple and straightforward for people; and ensuring that we offer the correct incentives. That development work has been really important.

I cannot give an answer on the direction that the UK Government is taking or where its policy is heading at the moment. I have still to meet with my UK Government counterpart to discuss the issues that we have talked about today in more detail. We have concerns about future funding, and I know that the committee has taken evidence in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the impacts of the Subsidy Control Act 2022. We still have concerns about that, but I cannot give a categorical answer at the moment.

I think that the director wants to come in.

The consultation on the agriculture bill is important in ensuring that we have future flexibility. We know that there will be a lot of learning as we go, so we need that flexibility and that ability to adapt to all the changes in technology and innovation that there could be within that time. We also need to recognise the various crises that we have faced—no doubt, there will be more in the future, as well as more challenges, so it is about ensuring that we have the flexibility to deal with those and adapt.

Yes, it is an iterative process, so we will need the ARIOB and that co-development process as we continue.

I come back to what I said in response to Jim Fairlie’s questions on food policy and food production: it is a key priority. That is why we identified it as one of the key pillars of support going forward and why we committed to maintaining direct payments.

I know that there is that call for more clarity, and, of course, we are developing that policy and working with industry because, ultimately, we want to deliver a policy that will work for people.

We are consulting on the bill right now, and it is vital that we get the feedback before we develop it further, because we want to make sure that the proposals that we have set out for a future framework in relation to modernising agricultural tenancies and a number of measures within that are the correct ones and that we are using the correct enabling powers to address some of the challenges that we have. We are looking to add some powers through the bill that are not open to us at the moment in relation to the action that we can take.

We want as many people as possible to take part in that consultation, because it is vital that we get that feedback and that we introduce a bill to Parliament that will work and deliver on everything that we need it to deliver on.