Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely, because, as much as we have an exclusions process, that threat still remains. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is another example. All the concerns that we raised throughout the bill’s passage—particularly in relation to agriculture, which we felt should not have been part of that regime in the first place—have been completely ignored. That example has also been used. It is really frustrating and worrying that, as much as we commit to the process, there are pieces of legislation that are a threat not only to that process but to devolution.

It gives us serious concern. I think that we all recognise the need for common frameworks. We believe that we have put forward a really good model for how we can work together and manage policy divergence, and we have committed to the process. However, a series of acts have been introduced that seek to undermine that. That was clear in the report of the House of Lords committee and in its scrutiny of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which really undermines the work that we have tried to achieve through the common frameworks process. There is also the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which constrains the work that we have tried to take forward through common frameworks, and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is currently progressing through the UK Parliament and which is causing us serious concern.

We have been told that common frameworks will be protected, but we have not yet been told how that will happen. It is really frustrating and concerning that, as much as we have committed to the process and as much as we think that it is a positive way to collaborate and move forward, it is continually undermined by pieces of legislation that seek to hamper the choices that we can take.

Unfortunately, the backstop for all these positions is that that is where we end up. However, it is important that we have the exclusions process in place in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Earlier, I gave an example of how we have been able to use that, although the process has not been without its issues in relation to the directive. When we introduced those regulations to the Scottish Parliament, there was a gap in implementation in terms of the items that we wished to see banned. The initial exclusion that the UK Government put forward was narrower than what we sought, and the UK regulations did not come into force until August, so there was an implementation gap of a few months. The process is important and we have the mechanisms by which we can try to exclude, but it is not perfect.

Some of that budget had been allocated to this year, and we are taking what we have learned from the islands bond consultation and engagement to see what progress we can make. We will be working through the process with regard to any future budget decisions—no doubt, the committee will be interrogating those decisions in more detail.

As far as the reduction is concerned, however, it is important to remember that our capital allocations have been significantly restrained; indeed, we received £175 million less than we had expected as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s spending review towards the tail end of last year. The capital allocations that we are getting are flat and they will fall over the course of the next few years. We have to prioritise as best we can within that context.

It is important not to forget that we have allocated resource funding to the islands programme and the islands plan, in particular. We have allocated an additional £10 million of resource to various projects, such as the appointment of six heritage and culture officers across the different areas and islands and the appointment of an innovation officer in the University of the Highlands and Islands. Those are just a couple of examples of how we are using that money. We are trying to use the funds that are available to us to deliver for our island communities.

I think that I alluded to that point in some of my responses to the initial questions. We cannot just consider my portfolio spend in isolation, because of the wider work that is happening across Government to help with the cost of living crisis. The budget for those interventions—whether those are through discretionary housing payments or what we are doing in relation to fuel poverty—will come from different portfolios. However, those interventions will still have an impact across rural Scotland and in our island communities and we are trying to deliver them as best we can.

There were a number of factors in that regard, some of which we discussed, I think, with the committee in my first appearance before you to talk about the budget. Around £20 million of funding was financial transactions and loans, and we had not been able to use financial transactions—I am sure that Sheetal Mehra will keep me right. If the Government is to offer loans, we need to do so on a commercial basis, and it simply was not possible to spend that funding. I cannot draw down allocations that I am not able to spend.

I have outlined the significant constraints that we face in relation to capital. I know that it was of great concern to the industry that the capital budget that was available for agriculture transformation was lower than it had been in previous years. There were all sorts of issues tied into that. For example, there were huge delays in getting equipment. There were huge backlogs. Those were not anyone’s fault—they were not the fault of industry or Government. We had to ensure that we used the resource that we had as best we could.

We regularly raise concerns, particularly in relation to areas in which we do not have the powers to deal with some of the most pressing issues. We have done that through the action group that I mentioned, and we participate in an interministerial group with the other devolved Administrations and the UK Government. I have also raised a number of those on-going issues with my new counterpart in the UK Government.

The task force’s recommendations are important. We are in the process of delivering some of the ones that are within our areas of responsibility, such as the establishment of a food security unit and the corralling of some of our business support to make it easier for people to access. However, the task force identified a number of actions that are the responsibility of the UK Government, and I have written to the UK Government on those to press to get that meaningful action taken.

There is a lot in there. I hope that I am able to address all the points, but I am sure that you will come back if I do not do so.

On the workforce, we have had the extra £10 million of investment this year in recognition of the scale of what Marine Scotland has to deliver in relation to the ScotWind process—in trying to ensure that there are the planning and consenting resources that are needed—and of our ambitious environmental agenda.

Of course, I have to work within the parameters that I have. If I had an unlimited budget, it would be great to invest more money in more vessels for enforcement. Unfortunately, however, that is not the case. We have three marine protection vessels and two aircraft to help us with that enforcement, and we take a risk-based approach to the vast marine area that they have to cover. I reiterate and re-emphasise that, if anyone witnesses any activity that they deem to be illegal or have concerns about, they should feed that back to us, so that we can analyse it and see how best to allocate our resources.

I recognise those concerns but, again, I have to work within the parameters that I have. I have talked about how significant the challenges in the portfolio are. That applies particularly to our capital spend, which is what is involved in our enforcement, so I cannot make a promise to the committee that we would look to enhance that at this moment, because of the sheer levels of costs that would be involved and the significant pressures that are already on the capital budget.

Absolutely. I go back to what we set out in our vision for agriculture, in which we focus on food production. It is about lowering emissions to their lowest possible level and doing what we can to enhance nature. I think that the three issues are intertwined.

Given all the challenges that we now have, food security has jumped right up the agenda. That is why we undertook the work with the task force and why we have committed to maintaining direct payments. We know that food production is vital. Ultimately, the £51 million is to support the transition to net zero and to support people going along that journey. Many farmers and crofters are already undertaking the types of practices that we want to see. We want to ensure that everybody comes along on the journey, which is where the work of the ARIOB has been really important. It is helping to shape incentives that will, we hope, work for industry; developing claims processes that are simple and straightforward for people; and ensuring that we offer the correct incentives. That development work has been really important.