Chamber and committees

That is certainly not the case. The piece of work on offshore MPAs on which we are currently consulting has been in development for a long time, and we are putting forward the full range of management measures as part of that. We have engaged extensively with industry over the past five years, or even longer, in order to bring those proposals forward. I know that some stakeholders have welcomed the fact that this piece of work has finally been progressed and that we are consulting on it. The work is being led by another portfolio, but it is certainly not introducing HPMAs—I think that we have made our position on that very clear.

I know that other sites, such as the University of Aberdeen, are being used, too. Having visited the site that you mention a few times myself, I know that there has been a variety of issues with it, including some that have arisen as a result of storm damage. Iain Wallace might have further information on that.

On that point, and in relation to some of the savings that you have mentioned, it is important to point out that we have continued to support our farmers and crofters through the transition.

You mentioned some figures, and you touched on the figure of £33 million. Some £46 million is due to be returned to the portfolio from savings that had previously been offered, but those were from underspends—they were not taken directly from the pockets of farmers and crofters, and we have maintained payments, which I am particularly proud of at a time when we know that our farmers and crofters need that support. We have offered that support through the programme on preparing for sustainable farming, which we funded and is helping to encourage uptake of carbon audits, soil testing and animal health and welfare plans. That is because we want to support the transition and to help our farmers and crofters as much as possible.

Yes, savings have been made—savings have had to be made right across Government—to meet our budget position, but we are still delivering: we are getting payments out the door and we are helping with the transition.

The work undertaken by our official veterinarians is hugely important. I will touch on the point about the Scottish veterinary service first and then pass over to Jim Fairlie or George Burgess, who might have more to add.

We are being quite transparent with the committee in setting out the position. The establishment of a Scottish veterinary service is still, ultimately, where we want to be. We had a programme board that had scoped out that work and what could be included in it, but, unfortunately, we do not have the capital budget to get the programme off the ground. However, should that budget become available in the future, we would look to pick up that work, as it would be in Scotland’s best interests to have that service.

George, do you have more to add?

Work has been on-going for a long time on the border target operating model, and there has been much discussion of it. I know that the committee has received various pieces of secondary legislation implementing the model’s various stages; unfortunately, those pieces of legislation have sometimes been outwith my control and have come in at the last minute.

Part of the problem that we have now is that, although the border target operating model has been implemented to some extent, it has not been implemented on the west coast, because of outstanding issues there and other interactions. We hope to clarify that, as a matter of urgency, with the UK Government, and I will raise the matter when I meet the DEFRA secretary of state on Monday. We urgently need clarity about what is happening.

As I said in a previous response, the checks are due to begin at the end of October, so we need to get urgent clarity for industry if that is going to be delayed and to know when the outstanding matters will be resolved.

As I outlined in relation to FMPs, various things can happen that officials have to deal with after we have set out our initial timelines for work, which means that they cannot progress that work in the way that they would have done. We try to deal with the various pressures as and when they arise while still delivering on the programme of work that we have set out.

I talked about some of the enforcement activity and inspections that are carried out, and I think that that is what has led to the proactive publishing of that information, because there were concerns around that. We want to be open and transparent about the level of inspections that take place, so the decision has been taken to proactively publish that information. It makes sense that we judge those things when they arise.

Absolutely. The places that are affected do not even have to be that remote. I know of areas literally on the outskirts of towns, particularly in my constituency, that have not had access to that broadband through the roll-out. We have committed to expanding the programme, through our own funding, to extend its reach as much as possible. In this day and age, digital connectivity is such a basic thing. If we want to enable more people to live and work in rural Scotland and across our islands, we need to do what we can to improve digital connectivity.

I know, but you have raised those areas in the PFG as ones that have not been completed, whereas it is important to outline that, as a matter of fact, they have been completed.

We have published the rural and islands housing action plan, and it is about the delivery of that plan. Housing is a hugely important matter for our islands and across the rest of rural Scotland.

I hope that you can appreciate that I am not responsible for a number of those policy areas, but part of my role is to ensure that we work across Government so that my other colleagues deliver on them.

I touched on the rural delivery plan. One of its key objectives is to ensure that we make evidence-based decisions and can track our progress, which is why our work on the key performance indicators will be important, as that will help to measure progress and make things generally a lot more transparent.

That all needs to be taken into consideration, and there are a few important points to outline in that regard. Some of the funding that had been returned for capital went directly to support programmes such as the croft house grant scheme and the crofting agricultural grant scheme. We want to ensure that that money is used for the benefit of our farmers and crofters.

We have had the national test programme—the preparing for sustainable farming programme—which I outlined. We have been supporting carbon audits to help businesses to get a better understanding of their baselines and performance in order to ensure that they achieve efficiencies from that and learn from the work that they have undertaken. It has been really helpful to utilise that work. Again, everything is subject to discussion and we do not know what future allocations will be. However, we will continue to engage with stakeholders in the development of any proposals for the use of that funding in the future.