Seòmar agus comataidhean

I absolutely appreciate and accept your points. There is no getting away from the fact—I have been quite honest and transparent about this—that there was a big cut to the forestry grant scheme this year, which has undoubtedly had an impact. It is also particularly disappointing that, at a time when we have seen our highest-ever planting levels—15,000 hectares, which is a massive achievement—we have had to reduce the target to 10,000 hectares. That is certainly not where I want to be.

I have had numerous discussions with industry and other organisations on the back of that, because, understandably, there was a lot of concern about it and about the overall confidence of the sector. We do not have a budget for next year, so I cannot say at this stage what will be available. However, I have a positive vision for the future of forestry in Scotland. I would like to see those rates increase and to improve that trajectory, because tree planting was on a clear trajectory. I absolutely accept that the cuts have had an impact, and, unfortunately, we are not able to meet the targets that we had initially set.

I know that we have covered that topic in some of our previous discussions. I will simply outline that every project that is above 20 hectares has to go through an EIA screening process. If the project is found likely to have a significant effect, an EIA is required for that project.

At the moment, not many EIAs have been required. That has been taken as a sign that the system is not working, whereas it is more a sign that the system is working, because of all the modelling and screening that has to be undertaken for woodland projects. Scottish Forestry colleagues work closely with the projects throughout the process of woodland creation, to make sure that all the mitigations are in place and that the projects are in as strong a position as they can be. That means that, by the end of the process, an EIA may not be required, because all those mitigations have been put in place. That is the fundamental reason why we did not agree to those amendments.

We also did not want there to be a chilling effect on tree planting, which we have seen in other areas. Such measures have deterred some smaller planting schemes from coming through.

That is certainly not what I have heard, but I am happy to follow that up. I believe that Forestry and Land Scotland has been undertaking consultation and engagement on its land management plan for that estate, which is very much about involving local communities. That is what we expect landowners to do, and our public organisations should lead by example. Wider involvement is hugely important and I would expect that to take place.

I appreciate that point. I think that that relates to the additional quota that we receive. We had a consultation on that at the start of the year, which contained quite a few options, and we received a number of responses to that. Ultimately, with regard to fishing opportunities, that additional quota makes up 11 per cent of the overall quota that is allocated to industry. I appreciate the frustration about the time that was taken to confirm that. Unfortunately, it was a case of ensuring that we worked through detailed responses to the consultation before allocating the quotas.

We always like to learn from these processes, and we appreciate that that was difficult for the industry. Of course, we like to provide people with that information as soon as possible.

I would be happy to follow that up with my colleague, if that would be helpful for the committee. However, again, I am not directly leading on that area of policy, so I am reluctant to say anything in particular about it at the moment. The areas that are relevant for this portfolio relate largely to national parks and deer management, but I will follow that up with colleagues and I am happy to provide more information.

I am happy to respond to that. No doubt, committee members will be aware that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill has just been introduced. I believe that it will be scrutinised by the NZET Committee, which has started taking evidence on it.

On how agriculture policy is developing, as I have talked about extensively at committee previously, we have set out our programme and route map for agricultural reform and set out when we expect changes to be implemented and when the information about those changes will be shared. We have obligations according to the legislation that was passed by the Scottish Parliament just before the summer recess—the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024—that mean that we must have cognisance of and regard to the climate change plan and the policies in it as we develop our rural support plan. We will, of course, be doing that.

The development of those policies go hand in hand, whether they are in relation to climate change or biodiversity. We will be working closely with colleagues on climate change as the plans are developed and feed through into that process, as well as taking forward the programme that we have set out.

The current proposals on carbon budgets in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill as published were based on the advice of the Climate Change Committee. If the legislation is passed as envisaged, five-yearly carbon budgets would be introduced. We would have to get advice from the CCC as to what those carbon budgets would involve and what they would look like. The intention would be to publish another climate change plan after that point.

There is still an awful lot of work to be undertaken on that, but, as colleagues around the table will, no doubt, be aware, the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gillian Martin, will provide an update for MSPs next week, to provide more information on all of that.

That is the key question, and I know that we have discussed the budget at length. The fact is that we do not have any clarity on what the future budget will be. Obviously, if we are bringing forward policies, we want to make sure that we are adequately resourced to deliver them. We want to be able to deliver on the ambitions that are set out in our vision for agriculture and to implement the change and transformation that we all want. We want to work with our farmers and crofters as they produce food, but to do so in a way that reduces their emissions and also enhances nature and delivers on our ambitions for biodiversity.

We will, of course, keep the committee updated as the proposals develop. Again, I cannot say what will be in the carbon budget, what that budget will look like or what advice we will receive. We need to see what information and advice we get and look to develop the plans and proposals from there.

I hope that we will be in an appropriate position before that point, if we are able to enter those discussions. We would hope to have some knowledge of the future picture in advance of that.

Yes, of course there is. I mentioned, as an example, reaching a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would be very beneficial. We are also trying to remove some of the red tape that has been a real barrier to trading for us. We could certainly improve on that. We also want to continue to seek improvements with the EU on youth mobility, because there are opportunities to enhance that as well. Within all of that, we want to make sure that we get the best deal possible, whether that is for our fisheries or for other industries in Scotland.

Broadly, there are outstanding issues with the UK Government when it comes to the border target operating model. When the model was published, we accepted it as being in all our best interests, because we need biosecurity measures in place at our borders and there was an unlevel playing field between how goods that were going out of the UK and how those that were coming in were treated. However, there are gaps in that, which is what we have been trying to pursue with the UK Government.

I hope to hold discussions with the new secretary of state about a gap on our west coast when it comes to what is moving from Ireland and Northern Ireland. That has happened because of interactions with the Windsor framework. The checks were due to be implemented by the end of October, which does not leave much time for industry to prepare. We have been seeking some clarity on that, and I believe that that timeline is scheduled to move. That is part of the discussions that we will have, because we need that urgent clarity for industry so that it knows what to expect and whether the timeline will shift.

Those things will form part of our discussions with the UK Government, because we want to make sure that we have in place an appropriate balance of measures that does not put an undue burden on our traders.