Seòmar agus comataidhean

Allan Gibb will probably have a better idea of where the analysis and consultation are at, because I have not had that advice and I have not seen the analysis of the response. That is probably the only answer I can give, rather than anything remotely like a definitive timescale for that or the next steps, but I am happy to come back to the committee with further information when we have it.

Yes, I would be happy to do that. First, I reiterate that we are still working to the timescales that we have set out in the agreement. I also clarify that HPMAs will cover 10 per cent of our waters.

I know that there is concern about what the measures will mean for people, so the engagement processes will be critical. As with other areas that we have talked about, it is important to ensure that we get feedback, that people know what is happening and that they know what the measures will mean for them. We will be looking at developing that process. We said that we would have HPMAs in place by the end of the parliamentary session in 2026. If I work back from that date, I can see that an awful lot of work will need to be undertaken. We will be starting to engage and consult on what site selection might look like.

I reiterate that we will not be fast-tracking or sidelining any processes—we will follow all due process in our engagement with people.

I come back to your point about what an HPMA is. As we have set out in some of the information, an HPMA is an area where no activities are permitted to take place other than those that are for recreational use or for marine tourism. It would be an exclusive zone; no other activities would be permitted to take place.

I absolutely do. On that point, when I visit farmers—for example, though the farming for a better climate group and the soil regenerative group—those are certainly the points that I have been hearing. I meet many people who are already well on their way and doing everything that we would hope that people would do to reduce emissions to the lowest possible level while producing food and also doing what they can to enhance nature and biodiversity on their farms.

That is also a key point that has come through our ARIOB discussions. It can seem that we are only rewarding the people who are just at the start of that journey and have a lot of work to do, but it is also important for us to reward the people who have already been doing the work and continue to do it. The proposals that we brought through for the consultation would, I think, show that that is certainly what we intend.

I am sorry. On your first point, I do not think that the pressures that we are under in the directorates that I am responsible for are different from those across Government. We all have limited resource and we are all under increasing budgetary pressure. We are, of course, trying to maximise our efforts and do whatever we can. I made the points earlier only to show that a lot of work is already under way in the department, and that continues to be the case because we have to roll out the current payment system and we need to roll out the national test programme as well as looking to develop future policy. We are doing that as quickly as we possibly can.

Right from the start, we set out that the co-development of our future policy would be really important for some of the reasons that I outlined to Rachael Hamilton, because we need to make sure that the policies that we introduce will work. That is where the consultation that we have launched is really important, too. In that, we ask about the unintended consequences of some of the actions that we are proposing and whether there are any issues that we have not identified that we need to be aware of. We want to make sure that it is workable, and the ARIOB has helped to feed into that process, which has been really important.

We want to work with the industry and all the different interests in order to take people with us on this journey. There is no point in our hiding away and developing a policy that we cannot implement or that is not going to work. We also need to make sure that it delivers on the vision for agriculture that we set out earlier in the year, in which we talked about wanting Scotland to be a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. We want a thriving rural economy and our farming businesses to be resilient, because we have seen a series of shocks over the past few years and know that there will probably be loads more challenges coming down the line, too. This is about making sure that we have a future payment framework that will be flexible and adaptable to some of those challenges in the future.

The work of the ARIOB has been important in helping us to develop the proposals in the consultation and to develop the national test programme in a way that will work. It will continue to be important as we look to develop the detail with which we can bring forward an agriculture bill, and it will feed into that process as we move forward.

On the back of what George Burgess said, I do not want that perceived dichotomy to exist, because it is not a case of either/or. People are doing all of those things.

Our farmers and crofters are the stewards of the land, and many of them are already undertaking the practices that we want. I would again highlight some of the networks that I talked about earlier. For example, in forestry, people can integrate trees into places where we can better stitch them into the landscape without harming productivity or efficiency. It is important that we highlight such examples to people to show what is out there and how it can be done. I do not want to go down the track of saying that this is an either/or situation, because we know what can be done. The soil regenerative agriculture group, too, is looking at all the improvements that can have a big impact, as is our agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network.

That is what has been budgeted for this year.

That has been a concern that we have had in discussing with the committee the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Act 2022. We have been concerned about some of the principles in the 2022 act and the impact that they could have on our ability to fund or put in place agriculture programmes that we would look to fund here.

Those are our concerns. We already know that we have a shortfall of around £93 million in our budget up to 2025, because we have not had the full replacement of European Union funds. That is a concern, but we are working with the budget that we have and trying to achieve everything that we want to achieve within those limitations.

That is absolutely my commitment. We are talking about our food security and the future of our food production, so we have to ensure that we enable that to continue to happen in Scotland. Also, farming underpins the whole of our rural economy, so we have to make sure that it continues. However, we do not have clarity on funding.

I agree with your comments. There is no doubt that the fishing industry did not get what it expected or, in fact, what it was promised through Brexit with regard to access. We have been working as best we can on this matter. Indeed, whenever we go into negotiations, our ultimate objective is to do our best for the Scottish fishing industry and Scottish interests.

As far as the negotiations are concerned, I am sure that Allan Gibb will want to say a bit more about the process, if that will be helpful. Of course, this year’s process has not yet started, and we know that there has previously been some challenging scientific advice about some of the stocks.

Officials are also working to ensure that we are having an impact on, for example, the design and functioning of the specialist committee for fisheries.

Again, I repeat that our key objective in these negotiations is to do what we can to protect Scottish industries within the deals that have been negotiated.

Allan Gibb can give you more information on the negotiations.