Seòmar agus comataidhean

You raise some important points. As you say, during the passage of the bill, we talked about the importance of soil health and soil biology, and some amendments recognised that. Nevertheless, there are no plans to extend what is available through PSF at the moment. We are focusing on the core audits that are currently available, and I do not expect that to change dramatically if we continue the scheme in the coming year. However, the on-going work and support is important, and we have touched on that in some of our previous discussions. It is all very well to undertake the analysis when it comes to carbon audits, but the work that is undertaken afterwards and the advice that is made available are important.

We are not directly supporting that through the funding schemes that we have available, but, as we look to implement the future tiers of the support framework and the continuous learning and development that we talked about during the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, that will feature heavily and it will be really important.

There are a few issues to highlight in that respect. First, I absolutely recognise your point about the importance of forestry and the wider industry. According to statistics that we published fairly recently, the industry is worth more than £1 billion to our economy and employs more than 34,000 people. The fact that the UK is one of the biggest importers of timber always strikes me as not seeming right. There is so much more that we can and should do to utilise our home-grown resources, precisely because of all the challenges that you mentioned. It is really important that we are able to have continuity of supply, and I recognise that building the industry is very important.

We have two forestry agencies: Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Land Scotland. Scottish Forestry’s budget has increased by 18 per cent, as that is where the majority of the funding for the woodland creation grants come from. You are right about Forestry and Land Scotland, but I would point out that, overall, there has been a 2 per cent increase compared with the budget in previous years. Of course, there are some differences in how the budget is communicated this year, because we have made in-year transfers. Forestry and Land Scotland is a key partner in peatland restoration and other important areas of work, but the important element that we should be focusing on is the increase in the woodland creation grant and the funding available for that, as it will enable us to plant more hectares of woodland.

Not specifically in relation to the NatureScot budget. Obviously, there are areas that impact my portfolio, as I have outlined. I do not have the overall portfolio responsibility for NatureScot, so it is hard for me to answer in any detail as to what the implications would be.

We have had an increase in the peatland restoration funding that is available, and we pay a number of different agencies, including the national park authorities and NatureScot, to carry out that work on our behalf. We will see an increase in the funding that is provided for peatland restoration over the coming year, which will enable us to restore more degraded peat. Over the past year, we have restored around 10,000 hectares, and we have a target of restoring around 250,000 hectares. The funding that we have available over the coming year will lead to potentially around 16,000 hectares being restored.

I know that the committee has scrutinised that issue over the past few years. It is important to know that we have listened carefully to all the recommendations that the committee has made on the back of that scrutiny on how we can improve our allocation of that funding and the make-up of the programme board. We have very much listened to, taken in and acted on that feedback.

It is always difficult when considering whether to use a direct allocation model or a competitive bid model—there is no getting around that. If you directly allocate, that naturally means that there is not as much money—that is, smaller pots might go to different islands, which means that bigger projects might not be able to go forward because the level of funding will not be there to support them. That is just one of the trade-offs that there are when the two different models are considered.

We have retained the competitive bid model and have refined it over the past couple years. Although I completely understand that some local authorities can see that they might lose out in one round, we believe that that model allows bigger projects to proceed that might not have gone ahead otherwise. I think that our competitive bid model enables a greater variety of projects, too. The Scottish Futures Trust has undertaken a lot of work, including with local authorities, on preparation of those projects and on looking at the wider pipeline.

I believe that we have acted on the advice that we have received from the committee. Our competitive bid model is the most appropriate at the moment, but I am more than happy to take on board and consider any specific feedback from the committee on the matter. Some of the projects have been big and hugely important, and we probably have the right model in place.

You are absolutely right—those are a vital component of our important compliance and enforcement work. The committee will be aware that we have three marine protection vessels, two marine research vessels and, of course, aircraft and inshore patrol vessels.

Investing in that fleet is hugely important. Like any vessel, our vessels will reach an end-of-life stage. The two that are closest to that are the MRV Scotia and the MPV Minna. We are looking at a procurement exercise for those vessels and at what that might look like. I want to give an assurance that we are acutely aware of the issue and are trying to prepare for the future.

As I touched on in a previous answer, this is also about how we can best utilise new technologies. The pilot that was undertaken with the drone was very important. It is a really vital capability that we could well bring forward. It could very much help with compliance and enforcement, because we have a vast marine area to patrol. Looking at those other capabilities and at where we can best utilise new technologies will be really critical, as will maximising our resources. I give an assurance that that is very much at the forefront of our minds and that we are constantly looking to adapt and to add to our capabilities.

Yes—to investigate its use. We have already undertaken the pilot, so the evaluation of that pilot work will, of course, be important in how we take that forward. I do not have any concerns about the budget allocation that we have available for that. There is also a long lead-in time, initially, when it comes to vessel procurement. I do not have any concerns about our being able to take forward that work in relation to the new technologies.

You are absolutely right. Everything approaches its end-of-life period, and that is what we are planning for at the moment.

Of course, there are other costs that we also have to bear within the budget. Some of the biggest increases that we have seen relate to fuel costs, which have risen dramatically. To give the committee an idea of the impact of that, which can be very big, if fuel goes up by 13p a litre, that is an extra £50,000 a month in fuel costs for the vessels. That is a cost that we have to control and manage while we plan for new vessels as the vessels that we have approach their end-of-service years.

I will have to ask Iain Wallace to provide more information on that.

I would be concerned if the motion to annul was agreed to, primarily because that would mean that the regulations that were passed in 2023 would apply. Some of the changes that we are introducing through the regulations that are before the committee—12 river systems will fall one grade and nine of those will be subject to mandatory catch and release, while four will rise one grade and three of those will no longer have mandatory catch and release—would not apply, because we would rely on the regulations that were passed in 2023. Ultimately, if the motion to annul was agreed to, rod-caught fish would be killed in some of those rivers. Given the precarious state of the species, I would be seriously concerned about that if the committee agreed to the motion to annul.