Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a quick question. Is the £26 million of capital funding for the agricultural modernisation fund the final instalment of the money that was taken from the agriculture budget during the emergency budget process a few years ago?

We will not argue about the £26 million, which is not really additional funding, because it is money that was previously taken out of the budget. Instead, we will move on to questions about the forestry budget.

I call Emma Harper.

It is clear that the Forestry and Land Scotland budget has had a cut of 87.6 per cent, which is around £11 million. You have explained that some of that budget will go to Scottish Forestry, but, as we have heard, that is only £5.6 million.

This is my concern. What assessment has been made regarding the impact of the significant cut in the Forestry and Land Scotland budget on rural tourism assets? I am thinking of things like the 7stanes and the dark sky park in my constituency, and the wider network for biking and public access. Over the past few years, there has been—or there appears to have been—a dramatic decline in focus on those assets. Mountain bike networks have remained closed after storms, and there has been very little activity in relation to the dark sky park.

Can you give an assurance that you have taken into consideration and assessed the impact on the national forest as an asset for tourism and public access?

Do you have any further questions?

A few of the committee members will have received correspondence from stakeholders. I will kick off with a message from the Association of Deer Management Groups, which are all shocked and angered by the decision. It says that, although it received weak assurances that deer management incentives are being considered and that deer management practitioners are valued, the removal of the SPSS is likely to severely threaten the ability of volunteer collaborative deer management to deliver the outcomes that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill sets out. How do you reassure stakeholders that they will be able to afford to continue and that you will deliver the outcomes that they hope for?

Welcome back. Our next agenda item is consideration of a draft Scottish statutory instrument. I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. He is supported by the following Scottish Government officials: Caroline Blair, policy manager; Megan O’Brien, solicitor for rural affairs; and Eilidh Wallace, policy lead.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you.

As there are no further questions, we move to agenda item 4, which is formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite the minister to move motion S6M-20214.

Motion moved,

That the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee recommends that the Animal Health (Fixed Penalty Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 (SSI 2026/Draft) be approved.—[Jim Fairlie]

Motion agreed to.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. As always, you put on a very positive slant, which you have been able to do throughout your time in your role. However, this budget does not build on previous support, because it is actually falling. You must be really disappointed, because this is the only portfolio across the whole Scottish Government budget that has, repeatedly, fallen year on year. We have seen a 7.8 per cent reduction in cash terms and a 9.3 per cent reduction in real terms in the 2024-25 budget, and this budget just repeats that cut.

For the flagship basic payment scheme, which the Government is very pleased to continue, we have seen a 23 per cent cut in real terms over five years—a cut of £64.5 million since 2021-22. This budget is not really building on support; it is making further cuts to a sector that is expected to do more over the coming years in the light of our climate and biodiversity crisis.

The budgets for the basic payment scheme, greening and the less favoured area support scheme have all remained constant—they have flatlined—which reflects a significant cut in real terms.

Given rising costs and the major transformation that agricultural businesses are expected to deliver, how can farmers and crofters do more with less?

But this is about priorities and choice. Almost every other portfolio has seen an increase; your portfolio is the only one that has seen a decrease. It is not necessarily about the UK Government funding formula; it is about the block grant that you get and the Scottish Government’s priorities as to how the budget is allocated. We have, again, seen a year-on-year cut.

To say that you have maintained the basic payment scheme is not accurate; it has seen a huge 23 per cent cut in real terms over five years. Why is the rural sector, given what it is expected to deliver, seeing a cut in the face of other portfolios actually seeing a rise in their budgets? That has to do with priorities and the choices that your Government is making.