Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are absolutely right. That is why the business development element is so important. Looking at some of the funds that are listed, I note that the Farm Advisory Service has been critical in offering advice and support to farmers. That service will continue to be important as we develop future policy and embark on the transformation programme. We must have that source to provide advice and support to farmers and crofters as we go through this big period of change. There is also the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, which has been really important in helping to encourage innovation in agriculture. Again, that will be really important, given the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis that we face.

So much good work is already going on, but the funds enable us to kick-start specific projects, to tease them out and to look at things that might work or could potentially go on to be done at scale. Enabling such innovation and ensuring that we have knowledge transfer will be absolutely critical. We have certainly heard that from stakeholders as well.

You are absolutely right. On keeping pace, the Government has made a commitment to align with the EU and, potentially, go further where it is in our best interests to do so. Ultimately, we want to become an independent country and join the EU. We want to make that as streamlined a process as possible. In some policy areas, it will not always be possible to replicate like for like everything that happens in the EU. Some of it will not be relevant and some of it might not be legally possible. However, it is our stated policy intention to align with the EU as much as possible.

The specific policy that you talked about has been on-going for a number of years and we have already applied it in Scotland.

We do not have plans for legislation on fisheries management.

As you said, we are committed to working with Parliament to consider that scrutiny. I know that this committee and the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee have made representations on the approach that is taken in that regard. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, will respond to those representations in due course.

That comes back to some of the points that I raised previously on the replacement for the EU funding for marine. We are also facing a funding shortfall for agriculture. Again, we had been promised that those funds would be replaced in full, but that has yet to transpire. We have an allocation of £14 million for our marine industries when we should be able to expect to receive something in the region of £62 million, and there is also a £95 million shortfall in agriculture spend.

Obviously, if those funds were available to us, that targeted spend would help those industries. It would also help us towards a transition to net zero and would enhance the work that we are undertaking on climate change and enhancing biodiversity. It would help us to achieve all those aims. We continue to make representations on that to the UK Government, to ensure that it upholds its obligations and the promises that it made to replace those funds in full.

The interaction that I have had with my counterparts in the UK Government has related to the shortfalls that we have faced in the funding for agriculture and marine. I would have to check back to see whether that specific point on inflation has been raised, but I will be happy to come back and confirm that either way, unless officials have that information.

On your last point, about taking the same trajectory as England, you will be aware that we are taking a different road because we do not agree with the policy decisions that have been taken in England in relation to future agricultural support. That is why it is vital that we formulate our own policy in Scotland.

One of the key commitments in the SNP manifesto was about maintaining direct payments, and we have also committed to making half those payments conditional by 2025. That is very much the route that we want to go down, because we want to support active farming and food production as well as ensure that we tackle climate change and the biodiversity crisis that we face. That approach is quite different from the approach that has been taken in England, which has been met with quite a lot of concern from the agricultural sector.

That has been a source of frustration for us in the Scottish Government. Obviously, we welcome any additional funding. However, a key issue with the £100 million that has been allocated through the UK seafood fund is that it duplicates the funds that we already have. We have in place the marine fund Scotland, which replaces the previous EMFF. The £100 million fund from the UK Government looks to duplicate and replicate some of our funding through that.

Ultimately, that is direct spending on what is a devolved area. Given that we have our own priorities and that we work closely with our stakeholders and with industry in Scotland, we think that that resource should be given to the devolved Administrations, because we can best determine the priorities and how to spend the funds. However, unfortunately, the UK Government has decided to progress with its plans.

As you highlighted, there is an increase in the commission’s budget. As a result of the section 22 report on the commission, a programme of work is under way to make the necessary improvements. The commission has undertaken various pieces of work. One of the report’s recommendations was to undertake a workforce review, of which we are considering the implications, and to look closely at what the Crofting Commission needs to enable it to carry out its functions and deal with the backlog of cases that has emerged. The increase in funding is important to enable some of those changes to take place, to ensure that the Crofting Commission has the necessary resources to enable it to carry out its functions and to ensure that it deals with cases as effectively as it can.

As, I am sure, the committee is aware, I am happy to follow up with specifics and further information on the sustainable agricultural capital grant scheme that you are talking about.

A lot of what has transpired has been completely outwith our control or the control of anybody else who applied for specific pieces of equipment. Unfortunately, budgets have not been able to be fully utilised purely because people have not been able to get access to the equipment that the fund would enable them to buy. Again, those issues were entirely outwith our control and that is why, when we look specifically at the financial transactions for this year, we do not include them as part of the budget. There is no point in taking an allocation that we know that we will not be able to spend.

That is also why we did not open another round of the fund last year. If we had opened another round of the sustainable agricultural capital grant scheme, knowing that there were the same issues with the availability of equipment, it would have created more problems. In the allocations that we have made in this budget, we have tried to set out what we know we realistically can spend.

I hope that that is helpful, but if you would like more specific information on the capital grant scheme itself, I would be happy to provide the committee with more details, or perhaps James Muldoon would like to add something just now.