Chamber and committees

There is a member of the Scottish Crofting Federation on the ARIOB, we will be undertaking specific events in relation to the agriculture bill, and crofting legislation will come further down the line. I realise that a lot of pieces of legislation are coming together and are interlinked, so engagement will be really important. I have talked about some of the sessions and consultation events that we will be holding, and we will try to use those networks whenever we can to spread the word as much as possible, so I hope that we get the strong engagement that we need.

That is where our engagement process is important. We want to ensure that all affected stakeholders are involved in the consultations, including coastal communities, which will be impacted given the very fact that the industries are based there. In addition, various industries will be affected by the HPMA process. Beatrice Wishart mentioned concerns about the spatial squeeze and what that means for fisheries interests, for example. We want to engage as widely as we possibly can, which is where the processes that we have set out will be very important.

I think that Allan Gibb wants to come in on that.

That is an important question. First, we encourage everybody to take part in the consultation, because we need to make sure that we hear those voices and that everybody takes part. I would also highlight to the committee the engagement events that we will hold on the consultation; I am happy to send more details when all the sessions are confirmed, but they mean that people will be able to ask us questions if there is anything that they want to go over. I will send that information to the committee once we confirm all the venues and details over the next wee while.

The consultation will be important, because the issue will affect our food production and how we produce food. It will affect how we can enable farmers, tenant farmers and crofters to undertake actions to reduce their emissions and enhance biodiversity. It is also important not just for our rural economy but for people across Scotland, because food is such a fundamental building block. This is an important consultation—I cannot stress that enough—and it is important that everyone takes part.

You might think that that is a straightforward question, but, unfortunately, it is not so at this moment in time, because the scheme itself is demand led. We have opened the first claim window for carbon audit, and we will open the second window for soil testing in the autumn. Therefore, it is not possible for me to put an exact figure on the amount that has been spent this year.

As you have mentioned, we have £51 million over the course of the three years of the programme, £10 million of which has been allocated this year. I am happy to keep the committee updated as we move forward. I believe that we will have future sessions to talk about the budget, and I might be able to give a more considered response then.

I completely agree with your first point. I certainly hope that we are not demonising the industry. It has felt demonised, which I do not think is fair at all.

On the proposals that we have made and the changes that we are looking to make, a key point is that we have committed to maintaining direct payments, but we are moving to 50 per cent conditionality. That is set out in the enhanced part of the framework that we have put forward in the consultation.

Another key part of the new framework in the consultation is its flexible nature and adaptability. We must recognise not only that challenges are coming down the line, but that there will be a lot of innovation. Technologies could emerge that we are not aware of and which we do not use at the moment, and we need to build into the framework the flexibility to deal with such technological advances and advances in science and research. We must have a framework that can be adapted in the future, that is less rigid than what we had before and that is less limiting than is currently the case.

Through the consultation, we are looking to give ourselves the enabling powers to tackle some of those issues and to build in conditionality in a way that we cannot do at the moment. I can give an example of that, which concerns the proposals that we have put forward on animal health and welfare. At the moment, we have the ability—indeed, the specific powers—to compensate people if there is a disease outbreak; however, we do not have powers to standardise what the minimum requirements for animal health could or should be, nor do we have powers to enable us to fund certain elements of that. It is really important that we have such powers.

Another important element of the proposed agriculture bill that has attracted less attention than the issue of what a future payment framework will look like—which, rightly, has been a significant concern—is the modernisation of tenancies that is being considered. From visiting various farms, I have heard about the inability of some farmers to diversify or to consider measures such as tree planting to enhance biodiversity. We want to make it easier for everyone to play their part by taking action in that area. There is a host of important proposals on waygo provisions and rent reviews that are intended to modernise agricultural tenancies.

It is vitally important. It is absolutely critical—there is no question about that. Of course, we are operating in a completely different environment from the common agricultural policy, under which we had a seven-year multi-annual budget, so we knew what was coming and could plan for that period in advance. We now operate in a very different environment in which we do not have clarity for that period of time, which makes things more difficult.

It is a priority for me and for the Government to ensure that we have a resilient food system and that we look at our food security.

As, I think, we said in the consultation, we agree with the overall objectives. The situation is similar to the situation with replacing the CAP. The new CAP has 10 objectives and, although our framework might deviate in the technicalities, we are, ultimately, looking to achieve the same aim. The same applies in relation to our future catching policy. We have the opportunity to look at how we can put in place a better operation in Scotland that does all the things that we want it to do.

We want to stop the unwanted catch in the first place where we can, and we want to ensure that we have a simple and effective system that delivers on the objectives that we know that the EU wants to achieve. It is not possible for me to set that out precisely because, again, I have not been through the consultation analysis. There could be changes on the back of that or things that we need to consider in more detail. I would be happy to keep the committee updated on the next steps.

You are absolutely right. I looked at the session that the committee held with Professor Griggs, and I am glad that it held that session and that it was able to go through that discussion with him.

The work that Professor Griggs did was really important, and there were some quite stark findings in it. Some of the review was really disappointing to read, especially his comments about the lack of trust and about the vitriol that exists. From discussing matters with him, I think that he had many experiences that he had not seen in any other sector. A key issue for us is how we can rebuild that trust, move from the place in which the relationships are so poor and try to improve those.

One of the key actions that we have taken since the report has been establishing the Scottish Aquaculture Council, in which we have tried to bring the broad range of interests together around the table and to progress some of the recommendations. That is still in its very early stages. We had our first meeting towards the end of June, and we are due to have the second meeting shortly. I am keen that we progress with that positive piece of work, and I hope that that can start to rebuild trust.

I will try as hard as possible. It just shows the broad range of work that goes on across the portfolio, though, which is why we are running out of time in which to address all the areas.

Spatial planning already has to be considered in relation to developments. That is set out through the national marine plan and regional marine plans, and we have also outlined that in national planning framework 4. Everybody will be aware, especially when we are looking at protected areas or features, whether they are MPAs or PMFs, that the specific features for which they are protected should be taken into consideration in relation to any decisions that are made regarding the siting of developments.

One thing that I would be happy to follow up with, if the committee would like, is a summary of where we are in relation to some of the previous recommendations that were made. A point that I want to make clear to the committee is that, although we are, of course, taking forward the Griggs recommendations, that does not mean that all other pieces of work have gone out the window.

I will just highlight other work that we have brought forward. We have published our response to the salmon interactions working group and we have taken action in relation to that. We have also progressed and completed a lot of the recommendations from the previous committee’s reviews, and we are still making progress against others. I am happy to provide information to the committee about progress against each of those commitments, if you would find that helpful.