Chamber and committees

You will have seen the impact in the figures that have been published and in the statement that the Deputy First Minister provided to Parliament. It has been incumbent on us all to identify the savings that are possible within our portfolios, so that we can help with the cost of living crisis across Government.

As I said in my response to Alasdair Allan, we know that one of the key issues for the agriculture sector is cash flow, and that is why we listened and did what we could to bring forward the payments to as early a date as possible. That cash should help provide some security to the industry, but of course those pressures have not gone away. After all, all input prices, right across the piece, have risen. We know that people are struggling, which is why we have done what we can within the powers that we have to ease some of those issues. Again, however, when it comes to the meaningful interventions that can be made, we need to see action at UK Government level, too.

What you say about the situation is absolutely right. Of course, that is a concern. We are in the process of implementing the recommendations of our food security and supply task force, and we are doing what we can in that regard.

As I highlighted earlier, not all the levers to affect that are in Scottish Government control. That is particularly the case with regard to fuel and energy. Therefore, first of all, we continually make representations to the UK Government to see what other interventions can be made. However, I realise that, for some businesses, the situation is particularly acute, and I agree that, if we are unable to offer appropriate support, the viability of some businesses will be threatened, which will threaten our overall food security.

We also have a number of other forums in place. With the UK Government, we have the seafood industry action group, which enables us to meet industry representatives to try to address some of the challenges that we face. Some of the challenges predate the situation that we are in, but they have only been exacerbated by everything that has happened. For example, we know that the workforce is a massive issue. We need to ensure that, across the piece, we are taking action where we can to help businesses.

I would not want anyone to think that the work that has been undertaken in relation to those projects has been wasted. I do not underestimate for a moment how much work goes into preparing and submitting such bids. There were various issues around that, which the committee heard about last week.

One of the key aspects of our work with the SFT has been ensuring that there is on-going dialogue to see how we can get bids that were not successful this time into a position whereby they could potentially be successful in future rounds of the programme. It is important that we continue that work and that dialogue.

I absolutely recognise the issue. Whenever I have been out and about on visits, I have not found one area, whether it relates to my portfolio, the wider economy or society, that is not struggling at the moment. The issue is felt particularly acutely in rural and island areas, given some of the challenges that we have talked about—particularly energy costs. The cost of living crisis is affecting everyone, but I think that it affects our rural communities more because of some of the factors that we have talked about.

We have tried to help as much as possible. I have talked about what we have done through agriculture payments to try to ensure that there is at least cash flow to aid businesses as much as possible. We have continued to develop and deliver other schemes, which will have a positive impact. Funding of more than £14 million is available through the marine fund Scotland this year. There is also the food processing, marketing and co-operation grant scheme, on which announcements will be made soon, I believe.

We know how critical such projects are. I hear all the time about what they have delivered in the past. It is important that we have been able to continue schemes, to ease the burden on businesses and communities as best we can with the resources that are available to us.

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.