Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is not the case with the Subsidy Control Bill, which will open us up to legal challenge from other parts of the UK if we continue to provide the type of income support that I have talked about, because that conflicts with the principles that have been outlined in the bill. That is where the problem lies.

I would be happy to write to the committee outlining our concerns about specific parts of the bill, if you would find that helpful.

No problem. As I said, we welcome any additional funding that comes to Scotland, but the main problem is that it involves direct spending in a devolved area. We have our own set of priorities, but the UK Government will determine, according to its priorities, how it will spend its £100 million fund, on which we, in Scotland, have had no say even though it will affect industries and sectors that are critical to us. We have had very little involvement in the design and development of the fund, let alone any input into how it should be spent.

The concern, especially for our industries and stakeholders that would have an interest in the £100 million fund, is about duplication with the marine fund Scotland and what we are already trying to do. That causes confusion. Given that we are talking about a devolved area, we hoped and expected that the funding would be given directly to the Scottish Government, because we are best placed to determine how the money should be spent on our industries in Scotland.

I understand that the titles that we use in the budget sometimes do not do justice to what is involved. You have mentioned a critical part of the budget that, as you have outlined, will support business viability and competitiveness and will ensure that we safeguard employment in rural areas.

The budget heading includes a number of important funds. For example, it includes the Farm Advisory Service, the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, the food processing, marketing and co-operation grant scheme, the crofting agricultural grant scheme and the small farms grant scheme. The budget is providing support and ensuring that there is flexibility around transformation. We are also providing direct increases for a lot of those schemes, which will be critical as we go through the journey of transformation across agriculture, farming and crofting.

There is a provision for financial transactions within that, which supports the quick and early payment of farmers, crofters and land managers. There is quite a lot under the business development heading. Again, a lot of the funds are vital to the transformation programme that will be undertaken.

As I said in a previous response, the overall funding for the three enterprise agencies is at its highest level since 2010. With regard to Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the spending power that it has over the coming financial year has not been reduced. The budget has been protected as far as possible, because—as you said—the enterprise agencies have a particular role in supporting economic recovery across the different parts of Scotland.

The budget allocation was based on the agency’s forecast of its needs—it was the non-cash allocation that was reduced. Shiree Donnelly might be able to come in with more information on what exactly that means. The non-cash budgets are utilised for accounting charges such as the depreciation of assets and the needs that are set based on accounting standards.

The reduction in HIE’s non-cash allocation does not affect its ability to continue its work on improving business and community resilience and protecting and creating jobs. Shiree Donnelly might be able to offer more information on that.

Yes, absolutely. In relation to the agri-environment climate scheme, the £36 million budget that is set out is our financial commitment for previous rounds of the scheme. With AECS, people enter into contracts for five years. We ran a limited round over 2021 and we extended contracts in 2020, so the amount that is set out for AECS in the budget is the commitment that we have already made to fund those projects. It is not possible for me to prejudge the 2022 round that we opened for AECS, for example, and say what the spend on that will be next year. I hope that that helps to explain why there can be variations in what that budget looks like.

You are absolutely right. That is why the business development element is so important. Looking at some of the funds that are listed, I note that the Farm Advisory Service has been critical in offering advice and support to farmers. That service will continue to be important as we develop future policy and embark on the transformation programme. We must have that source to provide advice and support to farmers and crofters as we go through this big period of change. There is also the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, which has been really important in helping to encourage innovation in agriculture. Again, that will be really important, given the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis that we face.

So much good work is already going on, but the funds enable us to kick-start specific projects, to tease them out and to look at things that might work or could potentially go on to be done at scale. Enabling such innovation and ensuring that we have knowledge transfer will be absolutely critical. We have certainly heard that from stakeholders as well.

You are absolutely right. On keeping pace, the Government has made a commitment to align with the EU and, potentially, go further where it is in our best interests to do so. Ultimately, we want to become an independent country and join the EU. We want to make that as streamlined a process as possible. In some policy areas, it will not always be possible to replicate like for like everything that happens in the EU. Some of it will not be relevant and some of it might not be legally possible. However, it is our stated policy intention to align with the EU as much as possible.

The specific policy that you talked about has been on-going for a number of years and we have already applied it in Scotland.

We do not have plans for legislation on fisheries management.

As you said, we are committed to working with Parliament to consider that scrutiny. I know that this committee and the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee have made representations on the approach that is taken in that regard. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, will respond to those representations in due course.