Seòmar agus comataidhean

A number of different factors are at play. We have been delivering some outstanding work. Some of it cuts across other portfolios and the work that both Alasdair Allan and Gillian Martin lead on in relation to the implementation of the management measures for the outstanding marine protected areas and for our priority marine features.

The consultation has opened on the offshore MPA areas and what they will look like, but there are still the inshore areas to consider. That work has taken longer than anticipated, purely because it is really complex. It covers more than 160 different sites and seeks to assess the impacts of any management measures. It has been a complex piece of work that it is undoubtedly taking time to deliver.

From a resources point of view, there are pressures on head count across the whole of Government and we have to work towards our priorities as best we can. We are managing to make progress on some of our key priority areas as quickly as we can, but there is no getting around the natural complexities that exist in some of that work, which can prevent it from being accelerated.

Absolutely. I met previously with Jimmy Buchan, and with Andrew Brown more recently, to discuss some of those matters, because I recognise just how acute some of the pressures are that the processing sector in particular is facing. It has, in fact, been facing those issues for a number of years now, and we have been trying to get some sort of resolution during that time.

We raised issues with the visa requirements, including the language thresholds, with the then UK Government in a previous forum. We had seen that in other sectors where there were shortages, specific visas had been allowed, but the same was not being applied to fisheries. We did not think that that was fair and tried to challenge it; unfortunately, though, we did not get anywhere with those proposals.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier in relation to progressing some of our other proposals, such as a rural visa pilot, I hope that, in the spirit of the new engagement that we will have with the current UK Government, we can reopen and revisit some of those issues with a view to finding practical solutions to try to address these problems. That would really help our industry, particularly our processing sector. I have not had those discussions with the new UK Government yet, but I will certainly be engaging with it on that.

The committee has previously asked me about the programme for secondary legislation. As further detail on that emerges, we will provide as clear a timeline as we can. We have, of course, obligations, under the legislation, on the development of the code of practice. We have started early engagement on it, and we are due to consult on it this year. My hope is that we will publish the code next year.

The rural delivery plan is an entirely separate strand of work. The plan has not been published yet, and the commitment is to lay a plan during this parliamentary session. A number of key strands of work are being pursued as part of that, and we are also developing a new national islands plan. That largely relates to outlining how we are delivering and how we will deliver for rural Scotland in relation to the policies that we will be introducing.

The rural delivery plan discusses how we can improve evidence-based decision making by establishing some of the key performance indicators that we need in order to monitor progress, and saying how we improve communication tools and pursue rural mainstreaming and the development of a rural lens toolkit that we can use. That work is still very much on-going. We have a ministerial working group that is helping to take that work forward.

The plan will build on work that has been done previously, such as that which has been done by the National Council of Rural Advisers and the recommendations that came out of that work. The intention is not to duplicate what has been done before but to build on it. We are still on track for publishing the plan, and we have committed to doing that during this session of Parliament. I will be making the committee aware of that.

We have not had the budget for the forthcoming year, but that is all subject to discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.

If you are talking about the whole quantum of funding, as the committee will be aware and as we touched on during our committee appearance on the budget at the start of this year, £15 million of that money was returned to the portfolio and £46 million is still to be returned. Largely, that money was from areas in which there had been underspends or where it would not have been possible to spend the budget within that allocation, which is why those savings had to be returned. However, again, those savings will be returned to the portfolio—I have that commitment from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. Again, those discussions will be on-going in relation to the upcoming budget.

Absolutely. We have set out some proposals that we think would help to alleviate some of that, including a future veterinary agreement and a sanitary and phytosanitary arrangement with the EU. We have always sought that and, as I have already said, we believe that the UK Government wants to go in that direction, too. I hope, therefore, that we will be pushing at an open door when we have those discussions.

We recently published our expectations, which are available on our website. I am happy to share them with the committee if members would like to see them, but they set out what we would like to see in an SPS agreement and what we think the benefits would be. As we know, households have paid an extra £7 billion since Brexit, because of the extra costs that have resulted, and some of the barriers to trade might be removed if we can make progress with an agreement. That is, ideally, where we would want to be.

It is the DEFRA secretary of state that I will meet on Monday, as part of the first interministerial group meeting that we have had for a year, which will reset that relationship. It is good that we will have those discussions in person. I have already set out some of our key priorities in my correspondence to the secretary of state. There are some urgent matters for clarification, some of which relate to the border target operating model. The future allocation of agricultural funding will also be on the agenda. As with other IMG meetings, I will circulate a communiqué afterwards to update members about the discussions.

I understand the point that you are making. Face-to-face engagement is really important, and I am happy to follow that up with NatureScot. If you hear any concerns, I want to know about those and to hear about them directly. An open and transparent process in which we openly engage with people is hugely important, because we want and need to hear those views. For example, you touched on the issue of the boundary. Is the boundary right? We are dealing with the proposals that were put forward by the nominating groups, but we are keen to hear all those views.

The proposals that were consulted on—I think that it was earlier last year—are about modernising the legislation and the aims of national parks. I cannot tell you definitively what will be in the natural environment bill, because we are still working through what proposals will be introduced, but I will, of course, keep engaging with the committee on the bill. We are considering all those issues at the moment.