Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I am more than happy to do so. With regard to track 1 of the national test programme, I think that the last time that I appeared before the committee, we were looking at fairly low figures for the carbon audits and soil tests that had been undertaken. I think that I said then that, anecdotally, we were hearing that more people were intending to claim, but I think that the final figure for the tests that had been undertaken by the time that the claims window closed was more than 1,000. There were just over 500 carbon audits, with the rest made up of soil tests.

That means that more than £1 million in funding had been allocated to that, and that is not to mention the 500 carbon audits that had already been undertaken via the Farm Advisory Service.

For track 2 of the programme, we undertook a widespread survey, which got about 1,000 responses, to understand more the knowledge about and uptake of sustainable and regenerative practices across the industry. We were quite pleased with the response rate to that.

The survey showed that the majority of people had undertaken an action such as a carbon audit or nutrient management planning. It was also important in helping us to identify people’s motivations for undertaking actions, as well as in identifying barriers or what was preventing people from undertaking specific actions. Getting those views from the survey was really helpful.

I was glad that the figures increased towards the end of the claims window, which we had expected. We want as many people as possible to take the support that is there to undertake the actions, but we know that a lot of farmers and crofters already undertake soil testing and carbon audits. We are trying to incentivise that as much as possible.

It was the programme’s first year, and we will run it for the next couple of years, so I hope that it will continue to build and that interest will build, so that more audits and tests come through. We really encourage that, because that will give businesses their baseline, which they can make improvements from.

We want to build on the test programme and to continue to support carbon audits and soil testing. We have added support for animal health and welfare plans this year, and we hope to add biodiversity audits to the programme as we move forward.

The actions and measures that people undertake will be critical to that. That is where it will be important to get feedback on some of the measures that we have outlined and what we are looking at for potential inclusion in a future framework. It is where track 2 of the testing programme comes in, because there will be detailed and in-depth work with farmers and crofters, which will allow us to see how those measures work together and understand the improvements.

First of all, there is no plan to cull any livestock in Scotland. I said last week that I support our livestock industry. I see a strong role for the industry and envisage it continuing into the future. We produce livestock well in Scotland and that will continue. We do not have any policies to actively reduce livestock numbers, but I separate that from the point of putting the matter into a bill, because, as I outlined, we will be introducing a framework bill and that would not be the place to put a specific commitment such as that. I hope that you understand that, but I want to be clear and unequivocal in my comments supporting our livestock sector.

We do not have clarity about funding beyond 2025, which makes it really difficult to plan. We have moved from a scheme that worked to seven-year programmes through the common agricultural policy, and, right now, we are working on yearly budget allocations, which makes it really difficult to plan for the future.

When the Bew review was undertaken, there was a commitment in it that there would be further discussion about future allocations and how they would work. We have continued to pursue that with the UK Government to try to discuss what future funding will look like. However, despite pressing for them, those discussions have never taken place.

I do not know whether George Burgess has anything to add to that.

I clarify that devolved Administration ministers were not invited to the event in Downing Street. George Burgess was invited to attend, so there was official representation there. The invitation came in at very short notice—I think that there was around a week’s notice beforehand. We raised our involvement in that at the interministerial group, given the devolved nature of what was being discussed, and the other devolved Administrations have raised that issue as well.

I do not have a definitive timeline yet, but I will continue discussions with the Deputy First Minister about when that money will be returned to the portfolio.

I also want to be absolutely clear that that money is ring fenced. It must come back to the portfolio and cannot be spent in other areas. It will be returned to the portfolio, but the detail of the timeline is still to be determined.

As George Burgess outlined, it helps us. The most adequate way to describe it is to say that it is almost like making a loan back to the centre that must be returned in future years.

It was offered as a saving; it was not spent in another area. That is what George Burgess is trying to make clear.