Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, that is right. The agricultural reform programme has been allocated £7 million this year. I think that £5 million of that is resource and £2 million is capital. Ultimately, that is to help us deliver the new capabilities that we need for the agricultural reform programme. It will help us to deliver the future operating model that we need for the new agricultural support framework. That work will happen in phases, and each phase will have its own business case attached to it. The first phase of that work, which the capital is being allocated to this year, is to invest in our data capability system. That will help us to look at what data we are gathering and how we can best monitor the outcomes.

Does George Burgess want to add anything, or have I broadly covered the future operating model?

I appreciate what you say about the figures and I am happy to let the committee have that information.

I would have to look at that. I do not know, off the top of my head, whether that has come from our budget. George, do you have that information?

The commission has been doing really good work to reduce the backlog. The overall uplift in funding for the commission is broadly to cover a couple of areas. One key area is the one that you have mentioned, which is ensuring that the commission can fully deliver the measures proposed in the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. We also have funding available to replace the crofter information system, to ensure that the Crofting Commission has a modern and flexible system that can adapt to emerging needs.

I hope that that is helpful in highlighting how some of that funding is intended to be utilised.

I will hand over to officials, who will be able to give a bit more information about the loan element of that. You are right—it looks like a significant cut to the croft house grant scheme, but that is a demand-led scheme, and what we have outlined in the budget is what we expect will be needed in order to meet the demand over the coming year. The scheme is open throughout the year, and the budget reflects the level of applications that we have been receiving.

I highlight the fact that, in the past few years, we have made some really positive changes to the croft house grant scheme. We were looking to increase uptake of the scheme, so we increased the grant rates that were available from 40 per cent to 60 per cent. We also added to the provisions that could be funded, so we looked at funding energy efficiency as well as grants for housing. We have tried to look at what we can do to make the scheme work a bit better. Again, however, what we have in the budget is what is expected to meet the level of demand that currently exists for the scheme.

I will hand over to George Burgess, who may have more information on the loan element.

Yes, there has been a capital cut to Forestry and Land Scotland, because we are prioritising where the capital is delivered. That is why the forestry grant scheme has been a priority. We are able to deliver more through that scheme, whereas it costs Forestry and Land Scotland more to plant trees on its own land.

There is no getting away from that. I have been pretty open and up front with the committee in previous years about the impact of that cut. There is no getting around it. You heard clearly from the industry about the impact that that had on confidence in planting levels, which is why we have been keen to continue to invest and to show the trajectory for that.

In this year’s budget, we have an increase on last year to help us to get back to some of the planting rates that we saw. At the highest level, about 15,000 hectares were planted. We have a target of about 10,000 hectares this year, and we want to get to 12,000 hectares next year with the funding that we have available. Ultimately, that is what will help us to get there.

I do not know whether Brendan Callaghan wants to add anything on that or whether I have broadly covered it.

You have raised a few points. Brendan Callaghan will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong in any of my assessment of the situation.

There is no point in us putting a massive lump sum in the budget if we do not believe that it can be spent. The allocation that is in the budget for woodland creation for the coming year will, ultimately, help us to achieve our targets. Yes, we could have put more capital in there, but a bigger capital budget does not necessarily translate to everything being delivered in that year because, recognising the cut that took place, it will take time for things to develop and ramp back up to where they were. That is part of the process. We have the investment to deliver the hectares and the targets that we have set out in the climate change plan.

I hope that that is a helpful explanation. I do not know whether Brendan Callaghan wants to supplement that.

There are a few points to make in relation to that. As you will have read in the documents, there has been a reduction in the capital budget—again, that is because we are under pressure in relation to capital, so we are trying to allocate that as best we can.

There had been funding within that for the previous year, and potentially for two years, but we did not know whether that funding would be recurring. That had always been made clear from the start. However, the funding that we had allocated for the rainforest restoration—I absolutely appreciate how important that work is—was largely for Forestry and Land Scotland.

A variety of different pieces of work are done by various stakeholders in relation to protecting the Atlantic rainforest. We have other schemes that are available. Through the forestry grant scheme, for example, there is funding available, but that would be for private landowners to access in relation to rainforest restoration. We have the nature restoration fund from the climate action and energy portfolio, which has been funding that more through the third sector organisations, but the funding that we had specifically in the rural portfolio had been for Forestry and Land Scotland to maintain the rainforest work on its own estate.

I recognise that that work has been really important—as you have outlined, it has been for deer control and rhododendron control. We want to ensure that the good work that has been done so far is not undone, and we are currently looking at what other options may exist and how we can best utilise budgets to make sure that we are maintaining some of the progress that we have made in relation to that.

First, it is important to remember that this is not the sole funding that is available to Forestry and Land Scotland. We provide an element of that funding, but FLS also has income from timber, renewables and other areas.

There has been a significant cut in the portfolio’s capital allocation to FLS, but—as I outlined in some of my earlier responses; I hope that I was clear—that relates directly to its ability to acquire land and plant trees on the public estate. I am not saying that Forestry and Land Scotland is by any means clear of challenges, because we are looking broadly across the public sector at how we can deliver more efficiently and look to save on costs as much as possible. However, that ability is the key area that is impacted by the cut to the capital allocation, which is the most significant element.