Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is what I have tried to illustrate by talking about some of the definitions that we have put out there. You are absolutely right that the term can mean different things to different people. As I set out at the very start, it is a collection of different measures. I have also made the point that you just made, that every business is different and we need flexibility to be able to adapt to that.

The code is not something that we will conjure up ourselves, suddenly introduce and expect everyone to comply with. It is about working with people to develop a code of practice that works for everyone. It is not in our best interests to exclude, for example, the 18,000-odd businesses that are currently part of our agricultural payment system. We do not want to lock people out—it is a journey, and it is about taking people with us on that journey, which is why we have made the commitments that we have made. I want to be clear that it is certainly not the intention to lock people out.

Ideally, we would want to commit to multi-annual funding agreements, but I am not in that position today because I do not have any certainty. However, going forward, we want to make sure that we are providing as much certainty and clarity to the industry as possible. Let us face it: if we were still members of the EU, we would have had a seven-year period in which we could plan for the future and what the schemes would look like. When we had that, everybody knew what they were going to get over that period and it was all set out. We are in a very different state of affairs at the moment, so it is not possible for me to say what funding is going to look like or to make those commitments, because I do not have that information and I have not been given any of that certainty.

Precisely because it gives us the flexibility to adapt the schemes and develop them in a way in which we think will deliver against the objectives that we have set out. There have been calls for there to be a rebasing of LFASS. We want to continue with support of that type because it is so important for our farmers and crofters in the most rural parts of Scotland. We must design the schemes with farmers and crofters and develop a support system that is going to work. One of the schemes that has ultimately delivered on its objectives—I am sure that my officials will correct me if I am wrong—is the agri-environment climate scheme. We could potentially look at what some of the measures might look like, which could form part of a potential enhanced conditionality in the tier 2 measures. It is about how we design those schemes, but, ultimately, we need to design them with the people who are most impacted by them.

A number of targets are listed elsewhere, particularly in relation to emissions reduction, and we know that that is also being considered through the natural environment bill. For me, it is not necessarily about introducing new targets. What will be critical, as I have outlined in previous responses, is the monitoring and evaluation of targets. We already have statutory targets to meet, so it is about how we set out the pathway to achieving them.

I am happy to follow up with the committee on the work that we have already published in that regard, if that would be helpful.

Ideally, we would like more funding than we have at the moment. NFU Scotland has called for £1 billion-worth of funding from the UK Government, and I support that call. I listened to the NFU’s conference down south recently, and it is asking for £4.5 billion rather than the £2.4 billion that it has been given by the UK Government.

I think that we are entitled to more support than we currently receive. Considering the potential for what we can do for climate and nature, we should receive more funding than we currently do. That funding has remained static over the past few years, so we hope for and would welcome any increase to that.

Again, we are confusing two different things. The vast majority of the funding that we receive for this portfolio, and which goes into payments, is ring fenced by the UK Government, which has given us no certainty as to what any future budget allocation beyond next year will be, so we have no idea what is coming. Without that clarity, it is not possible for me to determine exactly what funding there will be or to make commitments about multi-annual funds that, as yet, I do not have.

That is why we set out, as I have already explained, how we can expect the overall envelopes in the budget to be allocated. However, the quantum of that funding will very much depend on the UK Government, because that is where the lion’s share of my budget comes from. It all depends on how much I get from the UK Government.

We had £26.6 million available in last year’s budget.

I echo all the points that you have made about the importance of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. The RBGE covers four sites across Scotland, and undertakes vital work in respect of its collections and research capability, as well as running the sites and holding events for visitors.

Committee members will be aware that there has been a slight reduction in the published budget of £1.8 million, which is a 5 per cent reduction to the capital element of the budget. I want to highlight that the reduction in the capital element of the budget relates to the phasing of the biomes project and how that is working at the moment—it is not a cut to the project. That is why the spend is set out as it is. Overall, there is a £58 million contribution to the Edinburgh biomes project, of which £50 million comes from the low carbon fund, with a further £8 million coming from the Scottish Government. It is a hugely important project, which is why the on-going commitment to its funding is so important and will be vital for the botanic garden.

Absolutely, and I emphasise that point as well. I met the board just before Christmas to get an update on some of the key pieces of work that the RBGE is doing at the moment. I re-emphasise that commitment from the Scottish Government: we are still committed to the biomes project and the reduction in the funding is only because of the phasing of the project—the overall commitment still stands.