Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

We are being asked to scrutinise the SSI using the previous consultation responses. Having not read the previous consultation, do you still trust the evidence?

There is a deadline and we have not been able to scrutinise the effect of the SSI. We have no idea what the NFUS has said about it. In the past, there has been concern around rebasing the LFASS—I will call it that.

If you do not mind, Christine, that is the less favoured area support scheme.

Okay—sorry about that, Christine. I was just being clear.

There has not been a consultation to allow stakeholders to give their views. The Government is leaving it to secondary legislation, which is being based on feedback from the ARIOB to which we are not party. It is important that people other than those in the NFUS are able to have a say in how the Government delivers the £65 million.

We also do not know whether the payments will continue to total £65.5 million in the 2025-26 budget. There needs to be consideration of whether the Scottish Government will continue with LFASS payments beyond 2030, because the EU has discontinued them and moved on to something entirely different, and the SNP Government’s policy is to align with Europe. The committee would like to know what the future holds, because it is not long until 2030. The minister is asking us to ensure that the payments continue, but how are we to know what farmers in general think about the current payments for active farmers?

For example, the LFASS rules say that active farmers would usually own stock, but we know that stock levels, including livestock, are contracting across Scotland, which is a concern. There are young people who want to get into farming, and there is a concern that those who are not necessarily actively farming livestock are unable to access LFASS. We should be supporting young people who are coming through the system to ensure that farming in Scotland has a successful and prosperous future.

I am sorry, minister, but that is incredibly rude.

No, it is rude.

Can you explain why?

I have a comment on the evidence that has been submitted so far. There are two bits of anonymous evidence. I wonder whether, as a committee, we should reach out to anyone else who has been affected, prior to meeting the minister.

Good morning. Has spatial planning progressed since 2018, and what opportunities could there be to incorporate aquaculture into the progress of spatial planning as we move forward with the new national marine plan?

Would you like there to be an emphasis on spatial planning, considering the balance between socioeconomic benefits and climate benefits such as the biodiversity and climate change goals that the Government hopes to achieve through the national marine plan?