Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I would be happy to, convener. First of all, though, I want to address your initial comments. If you are basing them on some of the information that has been provided by the Scottish Parliament information centre on the budget, I have to say that I disagree with the figures as they have been presented. I should point out that, if you are making comparisons with other portfolios, the figures do not take account of in-year transfers and changes to the portfolio budget as a result of our switching from resource to capital funding. Moreover, they do not take into consideration our capital funding or the climate package funding of £150 million, some of which will be direct funding to the portfolio.

It is really important for those things to be taken into account. Yes, resource overall has decreased by 2.6 per cent in real terms, but, when we combine that with the 19.7 per cent real-terms increase in capital, we will see a real-terms increase on last year’s budget of 0.3 per cent, which equates to a 2.7 per cent increase in cash terms. It is important that I clarify that, first and foremost.

There is no doubt that difficult choices have still had to be made right across Government. With regard to the agriculture budget, which you mentioned, and particularly the request for multiyear settlements, we were seriously concerned about the decisions taken by the UK Government, such as the removal of ring fencing and, indeed, the Barnettising of the funding coming to Scotland, which takes no account of our overall land size. Previously, we received around 17 per cent of the overall budget, so we had serious concerns about what that would mean for us.

I appreciate that calls have been made for multiyear funding. The Government would very much like to give that multiyear certainty and clarity, but that is not what we have been given; instead, we have just been given an annual settlement. Of course, there is a spending review coming up, and, if that were to result in more multiyear certainty, I would look to provide the same as soon as we were in a position to do so.

As I have highlighted in my comments—and, indeed, as the First Minister has said in his own statements on ring fencing—the funding from the UK Government has been passed on in full to agriculture. We have, of course, provided additional funding, too. I should also highlight that it was the £620.7 million that was baselined into the budget for the coming year.

I absolutely appreciate that call from stakeholders, which I hear regularly during my engagement with them, but I believe that it would be irresponsible of me to say that we are committing to multiyear funding. I appreciate your suggestion about providing a caveat to that, but I hope that that is what I am trying to set out and to make clear.

During the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, I said that, if we were in a position to offer multiyear funding, we would. As well as helping with Government planning, knowing what funding they have as they plan ahead has wider benefits for the industry, our producers and our stakeholders across the portfolio. Until we have that assurance and we know what funding will be received from the UK Government, I will not be in a position to make that commitment. However, I hope that the position will change.

In preparation for appearing before the committee to discuss the budget, I was preparing for scrutiny in the areas of my overall portfolio responsibility. As I said, there are areas of funding that we transfer to NatureScot, so I just wanted to be clear on that. I am more than happy to follow up with more details for the committee on what that will look like for NatureScot.

Of course, there are impacts across my portfolio. NatureScot delivers a number of important functions, and we work closely with the organisation—I want to be absolutely clear on that. With regard to the absolute detail and how that is being managed for NatureScot, again, I am not able to answer that today. On the funding that is provided from my portfolio for those specific functions, I still fully expect that work to be undertaken and have an impact. I am more than happy to follow up with further information on that for the committee.

I will hand over to Iain Wallace, who will be able to give more information on what the staff reduction looks like. It is more appropriate for him to answer, because it is more of a workforce question.

There have been structural changes and people have transferred between directorates, which has not necessarily changed the work but makes it appear as if there have been bigger changes than there have been.

One key area that the directorate is constantly looking at is how to improve and become more efficient, and it is looking at wider transformation work as well. I have seen some of those initiatives at first hand. In my previous appearance at the committee, when we discussed some of those issues, I used the example of drone technology, which increases our capabilities and can help us in a number of ways.

However, there have also been changes in other areas, such as onshore operations. There has been an overall resource reduction of about 12 per cent but also a 39 per cent increase in the overall number of port inspections, and that is because workloads have been reprioritised.

I will hand over to Iain to give more information specifically about the workforce.

Officials may want to come in with more information, but it is important to reflect on the process that we follow and what we have set out. As we have said throughout the evidence session, we base our decisions on the best available science and the information that we have, and we then go to consultation. As Dr Antje Branding mentioned, we also regularly engage with fisheries boards and trusts. We rely on the information that we receive from them and we also act on it. As I said earlier, on the back of some information that we received, classifications were changed in two recent cases in which there were concerns about the data.

Officials have met the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association and there have been requests for further information. As far as I am aware, the information has not been received. I want to be clear about the process and show that we engage and listen where possible.

There is engagement. As I have already outlined, officials have engaged with the angling association, and they engage with fisheries boards and trusts. I again highlight the fact that we have taken direct action in response to some of the information that we have received.

The regulations will not change the basis of the information or advice that I receive. We will still have to work with the available methodology and with the data and information that we get. That might improve in the coming years if we get more information from fisheries boards and trusts than we receive already and if that gives us a more complete picture, but there might not be a radical change from where we are at the moment.

I give an assurance that we will undertake engagement. The discussions that take place are part and parcel of our work anyway, as I am sure officials would agree.

We have sought further information. Unfortunately, at this stage, I cannot categorically commit to lodging an amendment to the instrument, because we have not had those discussions. We are all bound by the timescales for the scrutiny of statutory instruments and, in this case, we are dealing with a negative instrument. I cannot categorically say that I will lodge an amendment to the instrument, as that would depend on considering any further information that was received and my having to seek further advice on it.

I want to make sure that I cover all the points that you have raised. On the budget that is available for what would equate to the pillar 1 support that we provide by means of direct payments, you are absolutely right that we have been at that figure for a number of years. The £620 million is the baseline that we received from the UK Government. When you consider what that would be worth, it works out as a 10.4 per cent decrease in what the payment should be, as we should be receiving just under £700 million.

That brings me to an outstanding recommendation from the Bew review, which was for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to engage in a conversation to discuss intra-UK allocations of that spend. We wrote to the previous UK Government and we have written to the current UK Government to ask for that discussion to take place, because we still need to have that discussion in order to ensure that we get our fair share of funding. As yet, we have not had a response to those calls. It is vital that we have a discussion about what fair funding looks like, because, when we consider Scotland’s land mass and what we are able to do for food production, climate and nature, I think that we are entitled to a wider share of any UK land-based funding.

Could you remind me of your second question?

Thank you for clarifying that, and I am sorry that I did not respond to that question the first time.

You are absolutely right about the agricultural transformation fund. There have been a number of asks from the industry on what that funding could be used for. It was important that we had those discussions with industry to see how that funding could best be allocated and used.

It is also important that that money is additional. Our greatest requirement has been for capital funding, which is why it is capital funding. It could have all come back in one year, but it is important that we are able to spend that funding, so the lion’s share of it will be returned next year. That is positive, because it enables us to fully utilise the funding within a year, knowing that there will be a return of that funding next year as well, depending on what schemes we are looking at.

There have been some suggestions. I will list some areas that I am keen that we look at, on which we are undertaking work at pace or that we have heard about from our stakeholders. There is concern that we have not had a food processing, marketing and co-operation grant for a number of years because of the significant constraint that we have had on our capital budget. Are there options for that? What can we do for the next generation—new entrants to farming? Can we provide them with capital support that could be helpful?

I am afraid that, at the moment, I do not have cast-iron plans for how that funding will be spent, but I would be more than happy to keep the committee informed when we know how the agricultural transformation fund as a whole is intended to be utilised.

I see that George Burgess is nodding, and I am nodding as well, because we are very cognisant of that. We do not want to make it too onerous for people to apply to the scheme, let alone for us to administer it. I completely appreciate your point.