Seòmar agus comataidhean

No—that could not happen through the regulations.

I assure the committee that we are in constant contact with our stakeholders anyway. I do not think that it is our role to plug the gaps in other funds. Ultimately, I come back to the point that the UK Government is spending directly in what is a devolved policy area. That funding should come to the Scottish Government for us to distribute according to our policy priorities. That is the problem with the UK seafood fund at the moment. It is causing duplication and confusion in relation to the activities that we are funding through the marine fund Scotland. That is not an ideal position and it is not where we want to be. It is a source of frustration to us that there is duplication when we should be able to spend according to our own priorities.

That is not the case at all. The SSI will enable us to fund a broader range of activities. I do not think that we should wait for the UK Government before we look to do that or to fund the priorities that we see as being important in Scotland.

Exactly. What is proposed in the draft NPF4 allows for that flexibility. I do not think that it can be too prescriptive but, if you look at the types of development that are enabled there, you will see that it talks about allowing development for succession planning, for example. It addresses some of the issues that have been in place before. It is about trying to strike the right balance. I am sure the minister has more to add on some of those points.

I want to see the outcome of your engagement event on Monday, because hearing those views and all the issues that came out of that will be really important in helping us to develop the final draft.

In relation to infrastructure, you talked about the use of vacant and derelict properties and land. That is a key factor in the draft NPF4 as well. There is a key focus on the fact that, rather than continuing to build new infrastructure or to build outwards, it is important to utilise the infrastructure that is already there. I am sure the minister will want to elaborate on that.

I emphasise that NPF4 is not about imposing developments on people and it is not bypassing any processes. Any developments that are proposed for rural areas will still have to work their way through the planning process, which, you would hope, would involve relevant consultation and provide the opportunity for communities to make their voices heard throughout. Again, we are not talking about bypassing any processes that we have in place at the moment.

Of course, there are the local development plans, which the minister has talked about, and local voices will be key in the decisions that are made about those plans.

May I come in on that point? There will undoubtedly be challenges, but NPF4 also offers a lot of opportunities for rural areas. I am keen to see the feedback from the engagement event that the committee had on Monday because it sounds as though a many valuable points and concerns came out of it. We are keen to address those as best we can.

There are really exciting opportunities that will enable communities to thrive in our most remote rural areas, especially through some of our blue economy developments. There are also renewables opportunities that offer the chance of exciting new industries that will create jobs, as well as what is being enabled through draft NPF4 and sustaining and ensuring that we have thriving rural communities in the future.

I am keen to hear about the challenges that have been expressed, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is also a lot of opportunity here.

In relation to the work of ARIOB, its terms of reference have been set out and we have been developing an immediate programme of work. That has been the board’s focus. I am happy to write to the committee to outline some of the work that has been taking place. It has focused on developing the immediate test programme that was announced just prior to COP26, and the immediate work in trying to roll out carbon audits and nutrient management plans, as well as a more detailed pilot to test what conditionality will look like for future payment schemes.

That has been the immediate focus of the work of ARIOB. It is also helping us to shape our future policy—we very much want to co-develop that, and the work of ARIOB will be critical as we look to the future. Of course, a number of pieces of legislation will be coming up in the coming years. We will have the agriculture bill, legislation on land reform as well as a natural environment bill. There will be a lot of crossover between those areas, not all of which I immediately lead on, so obviously we want to make sure that there is alignment. Wider questions may well come into some of ARIOB’s work, but we have not yet reached that stage in our future planning, because we have had the immediate focus on developing the national test programme and making sure that it is ready to launch.

We absolutely want to make sure that that read-across is there. As part of the engagement that took place in preparing for the draft NPF4, there have also been discussions with the Crofting Commission. These are not things that we are considering in isolation.

I want to emphasise that we are not setting out the creation of a fund through the regulations. The regulations simply set out the framework for funding and give us additional powers as to what we can look to fund—it expands the range of activities that we can look to fund.

We have had one round of the marine fund Scotland. We will look at the outcomes of that and at how the first year’s funding has gone. As we mentioned in the previous evidence session, a number of pieces of work are currently under way. We are working on our blue economy vision and action plan, and we already have our future fisheries management strategy. As we look to develop the criteria for future funding, we will make sure that that aligns with the visions that we will set out and with the different strategies that we will have in place at that point. We are not at the stage of establishing the criteria for that; the regulations simply allow us to fund a wider range of activities.