Chamber and committees

Have you done any work to look at the IFCA model in England? A lot of people seem to point to it as a really valuable, useful model.

Is that not a slippery slope? Open Seas won, and the case was about asking the Government to uphold the obligations that are in the legislation on our seas. Surely that should have been accepted and responded to in a positive and constructive way, rather than being appealed.

Thank you, convener—I have a number of questions in that area. We heard from the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society that,

“Cuts to the Agricultural Transformation Fund ... and Agricultural Reform Programme ... have reduced the scope of Government to provide either capital or resource funding to help the farming sector to prepare for change and or derisk trialling new ventures and initiatives.”

I would be interested to hear from you, cabinet secretary, whether you believe that that is the case and what you are going to be doing in the upcoming budget round to encourage, rather than constrain, innovation.

It is great to hear that there has been such a tremendous uptake of the agricultural transformation fund, for example, and I hear your point about the ability to move funding from one budget line to another to cover those applications. I also hear your point about not knowing what your quantum is for next year’s budget. However, will you take the enthusiasm from the farmers and land managers who are applying for that funding and put that into your thinking for the upcoming budgets?

The level of detail in the budget lines has also been brought to the committee’s attention, in that there is not enough detail to allow for robust analysis. For example, RSPB Scotland stated that

“due to a lack of transparency it is difficult to judge what cuts to the Agriculture Transformation Fund and Agricultural Reform Programme will realistically mean, as there is simply not enough information on what exactly such budget lines are spent on. This is important information for external stakeholders who are looking for detail on what spending changes in these areas could mean for activities such as soil testing, slurry storage and carbon audits.”

You talked about carbon audits, cabinet secretary. Going beyond that, could we get a bit more detail? I think that we need level 4 data, and we need a bit more detail to be in the public domain in a user-friendly format.

Yes, indeed. How do we un-bury that? How do we unearth it, bring it to the surface and ensure that that information is really clear for people?

Good afternoon, minister. Thank you for joining us.

I want to clear something up on reporting. The policy note states that there will be a requirement for an annual implementation report on the old Scottish rural development programme schemes only in 2025 and that, thereafter, any reporting will be wrapped up in the rural support plan provisions that are set in the legislation.

My understanding is that we will not have a rural support plan until the autumn or winter of 2025, and that reporting on that will be required at the end of each five-year period. That means that we will not have that reporting until at least 2030. Is there no requirement for reporting on any scheme that will continue in the interim, such as LFASS or the agri-environment climate scheme? If so, why is that? Should there not be on-going reporting?

Thanks for that, but the reporting is connected to the rural support plan and we will not get that until the autumn or winter of 2025. The requirement is for reporting at the end of each five-year plan period. Does that not mean that we will have all the schemes but we will not see regular reporting?

That is great, thanks.

The good food nation plan is probably a tiny little blip on one of the buried budget lines. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the slow pace and opaque nature of the development process for that plan, and I am hearing how frustrated they are. The consultation closed five months ago on 22 April, and the analysis has still not been published. Stakeholders feel that it is disappointing that the Government is taking more than three years to produce a plan, especially one that they feel is, unfortunately, unambitious. How can the Government ensure that there is sufficient budget allocation to take that work forward at a faster pace? Can you give us clarity on the timetable today?

Thanks for that.

On access to information on the marine directorate’s budget and research programmes, we heard from stakeholders that there is a lack of detail and transparency. The Government previously told the committee that work is under way to review what information the marine directorate will proactively publish, saying:

“As for the point about transparency as a directorate, we are looking at what information we can more proactively publish ahead of time, so that it is there and can be accessed readily by stakeholders. That piece of work is under way.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 11 September 2024; c 36.]

Will you commit to publishing more detailed annual information on marine directorate budget spending and research activity?