Chamber and committees

No—that is one area, but it is a fairly substantive area, given the size of the payments involved and the fundamental nature of the support for our whole agricultural sector.

We have already committed to maintaining that level of spend throughout this session of Parliament. I know that the committee is aware of the work that is under way with the implementation board to help to design and develop our future policy.

It is not possible for me to give the committee the full financial impact. The problem with the Subsidy Control Bill is that it could constrain our ability to make future policy decisions so, sadly, it is not possible to quantify the impact. When I spoke about figures earlier, I was talking about the scale of the overall investment that we make in our agriculture sector and the fact that our policy choices about how to direct that investment are constrained.

Absolutely. Some of the concerns that I have outlined about the Subsidy Control Bill and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 are shared concerns. That is why we have continued to raise them with the UK Government.

I will further explain some of the impacts that we can expect from the Subsidy Control Bill. Agriculture is fully devolved. Farmers and crofters in Scotland face challenges that do not exist elsewhere in the UK, but the principles that are set out in schedule 1 to the bill put at risk our ability to develop future policies that are tailored to address those challenges. For example, the incoming coupled support payments play a vital role for many of the businesses that operate in some of our most remote and constrained areas, but they would be incompatible with the principles that are proposed in the Subsidy Control Bill, particularly those about encouraging a change in the economic behaviour of the beneficiary.

Agriculture is carved out of many subsidy control regimes and is covered by the World Trade Organization agreement on agriculture, so it does not make sense for it to be included in the Subsidy Control Bill. The UK Government told us that a consultation was undertaken and that the vast majority of respondents agreed to agriculture’s inclusion in the bill. We have asked for that consultation information to be shared with us but, as yet, it has not materialised. At first, we were told that it could not be shared because of data protection legislation. We asked for anonymised examples to try to understand the rationale for including agriculture in the subsidy regime, because it is unusual for it to be included in that way.

The Subsidy Control Bill could also prevent us from retaining alignment with the EU if schemes that we want to develop and adopt are incompatible with the UK regime. The Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, Ivan McKee, and I had a meeting with the relevant UK minister this week to discuss some of the significant issues that we have with the bill and to try to better understand the rationale for some of the decisions that have been taken. It is unusual for agriculture to be included given that it is carved out of so many other regimes and that there is sector cover for it under the WTO agreement on agriculture.

That is an absolutely critical point, which we continually re-emphasise to the UK Government. We highlight the parliamentary processes that we have in place and continually make the point that it is hugely important to recognise those processes to enable the scrutiny that you need to undertake. I can only apologise for the late notification that you get, particularly with some pieces of secondary legislation. Again, some of those issues are outwith our control. We try to keep the committee up to date and informed as much as we can. However, there are occasions on which we get information at the last minute or when decisions are taken that completely change initial policies.

There was an instance of that just before Christmas, with the official controls regulation and some of the changes that are proposed on that. Discussions took place at a meeting that was attended by the devolved Administrations, only for a huge policy shift to then become apparent, which we were asked at very short notice to sign up to and agree to. The committee will be aware of that, because you had the various notices from me that then had to be revoked and changed.

That is just the environment that we are working in. However, we take every opportunity to remind the UK Government of the essential parliamentary scrutiny processes. Some of that is outwith our control. We genuinely try to give the committee information as and when we receive it to ensure that we allow as much time as possible for scrutiny. However, that is not always within our remit.

No, and that has been part of the problem. We asked for the consultation responses to be shared with us but we were told that they could not be, for reasons of data protection. We followed up by asking for anonymised responses so that we could understand the rationale for people asking for agriculture to be included. After the meeting we had on Monday, we were told that that information will be shared with us, but, as yet, we have not received it.

With regard to the common frameworks, I know that there are six areas that relate to the committee’s remit. Those frameworks should be published at some point towards the end of the month, and it will then be up to the committee to scrutinise them.

I am sorry, but I have forgotten the last part of your question.

I do not agree with that assertion at all. I hope that I have been able to explain in my previous responses to you, and in my responses to some of Jim Fairlie’s questions, why we have set out what we have in the budget. There is no point in us allocating money, or looking to protect moneys, in the budget that we know for a fact that we will not be able to spend because of some of the issues that I have outlined, whether in relation to financial transactions or the capital schemes for funding equipment. There is no doubt that, if we did that, and there were huge underspends in budgets and areas that we had not been able to progress as a result, you would be criticising me in my future appearances at committee.

I have set out the realistic level of spend that we can hope to achieve over the coming financial year, while firmly setting us on the path for transformation. Again, I come back to the work of the implementation board in ensuring that we co-develop the approach with our stakeholders and with industry. That is where the national test programme comes in. That work, as it progresses from spring onwards, will be vital, because we need to take the whole industry with us. I hope that some of the measures that we have set out in that regard will enable that to happen.

You are absolutely right that housing is critical. I hear about it a lot; it is continually raised with me. When I responded to Beatrice Wishart, I spoke about how the islands bonds cannot be seen as a blunt instrument that will automatically solve all the problems that are experienced on the islands, because there are so many other vital issues, including housing and wider connectivity.

I have regular engagement through the islands strategic group, which discusses such issues. I also have regular engagement with colleagues across the Government. For example, Shona Robison, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, attended our latest strategic meeting to discuss the Government’s plans for housing. Although the spend in that area does not necessarily fall within my portfolio, an action plan for rural and island housing is being developed and it will look to tackle and address some of the critical problems. The issue is raised repeatedly and we are committed to tackling it.

I was going to say that the funding that Marine Scotland has received has been appropriately spent. Again, however, I note that a lot has changed, even just over the past year. We declared a climate emergency and a biodiversity emergency, and we face similar challenges in the marine environment to the challenges that we face on land. As I outlined, the extra £10 million in resource will really help Marine Scotland to face up to some of those challenges, as well as in the drive for offshore renewables, which I mentioned earlier. We need to ensure that we enable that work, which is currently at the planning and consenting stage, to be done, and that we have in place the resources to scale it up.

We also had the Bute house agreement with the Scottish Green Party, which led us to look at our priorities, reprioritise some areas and put in place some ambitious commitments. That is why the extra investment in Marine Scotland is so important.

We have tried to ensure that the marine fund and any funds that we have align with the priorities that we have set out. We set out priorities in our future fisheries management strategy, but—again—a lot has changed over the past year. That was the first year of the marine fund Scotland, so we are seeking to evaluate the programme and look at what was achieved as a result of the funding that was spent. We want to ensure that, when we develop the strategies for these funds, they meet the ambitious priorities and commitments that we, as a Government, have set out and that they seek to achieve those goals.

If the committee would appreciate further information on the projects that have been awarded funding so far through the marine fund Scotland, and on the criteria that have been used, I would be happy to send that on.