Seòmar agus comataidhean

Officials may want to come in with more information, but it is important to reflect on the process that we follow and what we have set out. As we have said throughout the evidence session, we base our decisions on the best available science and the information that we have, and we then go to consultation. As Dr Antje Branding mentioned, we also regularly engage with fisheries boards and trusts. We rely on the information that we receive from them and we also act on it. As I said earlier, on the back of some information that we received, classifications were changed in two recent cases in which there were concerns about the data.

Officials have met the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and there have been requests for further information. As far as I am aware, the information has not been received. I want to be clear about the process and show that we engage and listen where possible.

There is engagement. As I have already outlined, officials have engaged with the angling association, and they engage with fisheries boards and trusts. I again highlight the fact that we have taken direct action in response to some of the information that we have received.

The regulations will not change the basis of the information or advice that I receive. We will still have to work with the available methodology and with the data and information that we get. That might improve in the coming years if we get more information from fisheries boards and trusts than we receive already and if that gives us a more complete picture, but there might not be a radical change from where we are at the moment.

I give an assurance that we will undertake engagement. The discussions that take place are part and parcel of our work anyway, as I am sure officials would agree.

We have sought further information. Unfortunately, at this stage, I cannot categorically commit to lodging an amendment to the instrument, because we have not had those discussions. We are all bound by the timescales for the scrutiny of statutory instruments and, in this case, we are dealing with a negative instrument. I cannot categorically say that I will lodge an amendment to the instrument, as that would depend on considering any further information that was received and my having to seek further advice on it.

I want to make sure that I cover all the points that you have raised. On the budget that is available for what would equate to the pillar 1 support that we provide by means of direct payments, you are absolutely right that we have been at that figure for a number of years. The £620 million is the baseline that we received from the UK Government. When you consider what that would be worth, it works out as a 10.4 per cent decrease in what the payment should be, as we should be receiving just under £700 million.

That brings me to an outstanding recommendation from the Bew review, which was for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to engage in a conversation to discuss intra-UK allocations of that spend. We wrote to the previous UK Government and we have written to the current UK Government to ask for that discussion to take place, because we still need to have that discussion in order to ensure that we get our fair share of funding. As yet, we have not had a response to those calls. It is vital that we have a discussion about what fair funding looks like, because, when we consider Scotland’s land mass and what we are able to do for food production, climate and nature, I think that we are entitled to a wider share of any UK land-based funding.

Could you remind me of your second question?

Thank you for clarifying that, and I am sorry that I did not respond to that question the first time.

You are absolutely right about the agricultural transformation fund. There have been a number of asks from the industry on what that funding could be used for. It was important that we had those discussions with industry to see how that funding could best be allocated and used.

It is also important that that money is additional. Our greatest requirement has been for capital funding, which is why it is capital funding. It could have all come back in one year, but it is important that we are able to spend that funding, so the lion’s share of it will be returned next year. That is positive, because it enables us to fully utilise the funding within a year, knowing that there will be a return of that funding next year as well, depending on what schemes we are looking at.

There have been some suggestions. I will list some areas that I am keen that we look at, on which we are undertaking work at pace or that we have heard about from our stakeholders. There is concern that we have not had a food processing, marketing and co-operation grant for a number of years because of the significant constraint that we have had on our capital budget. Are there options for that? What can we do for the next generation—new entrants to farming? Can we provide them with capital support that could be helpful?

I am afraid that, at the moment, I do not have cast-iron plans for how that funding will be spent, but I would be more than happy to keep the committee informed when we know how the agricultural transformation fund as a whole is intended to be utilised.

I see that George Burgess is nodding, and I am nodding as well, because we are very cognisant of that. We do not want to make it too onerous for people to apply to the scheme, let alone for us to administer it. I completely appreciate your point.

The year 2024-25 was due to be the last one in which we offered support for carbon audits and soil sampling, but I am keen that that continues in the coming year, given that some of the audits will become mandatory. I will look to confirm further details of that in due course. I am not in a position to say exactly when that will reopen or relaunch, but that is what we are considering for the coming year.

You are right in relation to the carbon audits that the farm advisory service was offering, but we also had that avenue available through the PSF scheme, and I believe that people were being redirected to that.

I do not know whether George Burgess has more information on what exactly will be available through FAS next year. That has been part of the offering in previous financial years, and I would expect that to be the case this time round, but perhaps George has further information.

It is not available at the moment, but, as George Burgess said, we are providing FAS with a slight increase in funding during the coming financial year, so I expect that that will still be the offering. It is my intention to run the PSF scheme in the coming year, but I will update the committee when I have more details on that.

Yes, it would, because we would have the security of knowing what we were going to receive and when. That would enable us to do it. If we had a multi-annual commitment, we would be in a better position to look at that.

Sometimes, how the budget is set out does not necessarily help, because it does not always cover the full extent of a scheme when it is under a more general heading and a number of different schemes are within it. The biggest element of funding is what we pay through the basic payments scheme and greening, which now have their own conditions attached through voluntary coupled support.

However, one of our key schemes, which you rightly mentioned, is the agri-environment climate scheme. It is probably the most key of the schemes that help us to achieve what we are trying to do with food production and working with the land in a way that also works for climate and nature. It is important to point out that, when it comes to the way that the funding for that is presented in the budget, it looks as though a fairly small capital element is allocated to the AECS scheme this year; however, as I touched on, a climate change fund is available, of which some has been allocated to AECS, so the full AECS funding is not listed in the RALRI budget. That other element falls within the net zero budget line; we are due to receive an extra £4.15 million, I think, in capital, to support the AECS scheme for the coming year. That would enable us to bundle the eligible applications that we received for last year’s round as well as fund the five-year contracts on which AECS runs, including all our previous contracts.

However, that is by no means our only scheme for doing that. Last year, we also used the agricultural transformation fund to support AECS, to help businesses on their way to adhering to the water environment regulations that will come into force at the start of next year. That involved slurry storage, irrigation lagoons and, a couple of years ago, slurry spreading equipment.

Within the business development line of the budget, too, we have a number of schemes—for example, the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, as well as a host of others—that people can apply to. Such funds are important in supporting and encouraging the innovation that we want in farming and crofting. Our key fund for achieving all our outcomes is probably the AECS, but it is important to point out the others.

Another thing that I have so far neglected to mention is the funding that we provide to NatureScot, which is helping us to pilot different approaches. Over the past year, we have supported its farming with nature programme, which has been piloting biodiversity audit and the app that is being considered. It has also been looking at piloting an outcomes-based approach for farming. We have provided funding to enable it to undertake that work for us, which has proved vital. Especially for biodiversity auditing, having such tools available is important.