Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. In addition, if improvements can be made to the grant schemes that we currently have, we want to make those at the same time. The committee will probably be aware that we have had a consultation, which closed within the past couple of weeks, about improvements to the forestry grant scheme—about what we can do to remove some of the barriers that people face in accessing that scheme and trying to overcome those, because we want the integration of more trees on farms. We have an integrating trees network to which we like to direct people, to show exactly how that can be done. Such opportunities are really important.

I emphasise that I recognise the importance of the less favoured area support that we currently provide. That is why we have committed to maintaining the levels of payment as they are at the moment. We will continue our work on that, as we set out in our route map, as we look to build the future framework.

We are not pushing that down the line. In the route map that I published in February, I set out a very clear timescale for introducing changes and making information about those changes available to enable people to plan. The route map sets out a very clear timetable to try to give people comfort with regard to information.

However, I should say that we will not be removing any payment without there being clarity. As I have said before in the chamber—and I am keen to make the commitment again and to be clear about this—we are not going to see any cliff edges in support, with people one day accessing schemes that are gone the next. I absolutely appreciate the importance of the issue, of people’s ability to plan their future and their business, and of the need for longer-term clarity and security. Indeed, that is why we have committed to maintaining direct payments. We recognise how important that support is to our food production and in enabling our farmers and crofters to continue to undertake the good work that they are already doing. Again, our route map sets out a clear timetable to show when more of that information will be available.

I do not know where those suggestions have come from, but I am more than happy to follow the matter up with you and to hear those concerns.

As I said in last week’s debate, I absolutely recognise the importance of livestock farming to our island communities. In some parts of the country, people do not have as many opportunities to look at other measures that they could take or other types of farming that they could undertake. There will always be a place for livestock farming in Scotland, because we do it well here, and that will continue into the future. Again, I am more than happy to follow up those issues.

I also want to ensure that our communication is clear. It is frustrating to hear the sort of example that you have highlighted. I want the messages that we send out to reach everyone. However, if you are hearing those things, that must not be the case. I want to hear any suggestions that people might have for improving our communications, because we are looking to do that as much as we can.

We have many examples that we could highlight. There are the different networks—our agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network, our integrating trees network and so on—in which so much good practice is being undertaken, and there is also the Farm Advisory Service. We are looking to engage with as many people as possible, and that is what we have tried to do by providing more clarity and information through the route map. I would direct people to look at that and the list of measures that we have published for an indication of what things might look like in the future. We are also actively seeking feedback, because we want to hear how those measures might work.

Key barriers related to knowledge and support. Progress is needed on that. Access to funding was also identified as a potential barrier. Perhaps George Burgess has further information to add.

Those elements have only just launched. On the individual actions that have been taken on the back of audits, I gave the figures for support that has been claimed; I do not know whether George Burgess wants to come in on that.

Before we get to that, I agree with you that it is all very well to undertake a test, but the actions that are taken on the back of it are what is really important. As part of the soil testing, we offer £250 in personal development funding to enable and encourage upskilling, which allows people to undertake nutrient management planning.

I detect a criticism from you on the funding that has been offered for animal health and welfare. However, that scheme was not designed by us alone but with our farmers and crofters, our chief vet and other key stakeholders. Together, we looked at a package that would incentivise the sector. We did not just want to undertake a plan; we also considered meaningful actions that would have an impact for those businesses. That is how the programme was developed. From the feedback that I have heard—I do not know whether George Burgess has more information—the package of available support has been well received.

That has been the concern with the passing of the Subsidy Control Act 2022. We felt that that could constrain our ability to create our own bespoke policies in the future. England has developed the environmental land management scheme, and it is only right and fair that we develop schemes that work for our farmers and crofters in Scotland and that recognise the very distinct and unique challenges that we face here.

LFASS was a particular area of concern, as we felt that, because of subsidy control, if we decided on that scheme or to continue a similar scheme in the future, that could be open to challenge. I believe that guidance in relation to agriculture has been published, but we still have concerns about that.

We did not think that agriculture should have been included in the Subsidy Control Act 2022 in the first place. It was unusual for that to be done. I do not think that any of the consultation analysis in relation to why that should have been included in a subsidy control regime was shared with us.

I will pass over to George Burgess, who might have more information, particularly on the guidance point.

The concerns broadly relate to the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and the measures through that. There could potentially be challenges in the future to policies that we would look to introduce or to have here again, recognising our distinct and unique circumstances in Scotland and how our industry is different from that of England, for example.

We are still to see how that will develop, but it is frustrating, because we did not need to be in a position where agriculture was included. Because of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, we now have less freedom and flexibility to design our own policy than we would have had as a member of the EU. We will have to carefully consider that as we move forward and develop our own policy.

I would be happy to follow up with more information and to detail that, if that would be helpful. The money was not spent in any other area; it was offered as a saving.

We would welcome more funding from the UK Government, but we should—

I cannot set out for the committee today a definitive figure, because we need to have the discussion on how the allocations will work, but we are not even getting that far.