Seòmar agus comataidhean

You touched on deer management. Is that likely to be part of the natural environment bill, or will separate policies come forward to the committee to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? How will that appear?

So, individual pieces of deer legislation are not likely to come to the committee outwith that bill. Is that correct?

Thank you.

We will go on to theme 2, which is on the climate and biodiversity plans.

You sound very positive about forestry, but, in reality, a 40 per cent cut to woodland grants has had a dramatic impact on our forestry sector. In the programme for government, it was stated that at least 10,000 hectares of woodlands are to be restored, but the official target prior to that was 18,000 hectares, so that is a huge cut. That will have an impact on the Government’s climate change targets, especially if those 18,000 hectares were to be for planting fast-growing conifers. Employment in the forestry industry has increased by 30 per cent since 2015, and the message that the Government is sending does not promote much confidence in the sector although investment in the sector depends on that confidence in future wood supplies. That is one of the biggest issues.

What is your vision after March? There is no indication of what the targets will be after then. It is a long-term industry, so what is your vision for forestry? Is the target to remain at 10,000 hectares, or are you looking to get back to the target of 18,000 hectares?

The industry is planting seedlings and growing trees. What can you say that will give it confidence that there will be support and that the targets will rise in the future? I know that we do not know what the budget is, but what is your vision for future planting?

Certainly.

Before we move on again, I have a question. You touched on progress on the key deliverables in the draft biodiversity delivery plan. How will those affect the rural support plan when it is published?

You said that you are proud that you have continued to pay farmers at that level, but an independent review—the Bew review—suggested that Scottish farmers were being short-changed by £61 million. Where should that £61 million be spent? Are you saying that farmers do not actually need it, that they can get through and that the payments are adequate? As Rhoda Grant said, it was identified that Scottish farmers were being underpaid by £61 million. Where are the challenges in the budget that mean that that £61 million is not being paid out to farmers?

I suppose that the question is what the impact is on farmers of not having that £61 million, which was identified by an independent inquiry.

No, no. The Bew review identified that Scottish farmers should get paid an additional £61 million.