Chamber and committees

I am happy to respond to that. No doubt, committee members will be aware that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill has just been introduced. I believe that it will be scrutinised by the NZET Committee, which has started taking evidence on it.

On how agriculture policy is developing, as I have talked about extensively at committee previously, we have set out our programme and route map for agricultural reform and set out when we expect changes to be implemented and when the information about those changes will be shared. We have obligations according to the legislation that was passed by the Scottish Parliament just before the summer recess—the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024—that mean that we must have cognisance of and regard to the climate change plan and the policies in it as we develop our rural support plan. We will, of course, be doing that.

The development of those policies go hand in hand, whether they are in relation to climate change or biodiversity. We will be working closely with colleagues on climate change as the plans are developed and feed through into that process, as well as taking forward the programme that we have set out.

The current proposals on carbon budgets in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill as published were based on the advice of the Climate Change Committee. If the legislation is passed as envisaged, five-yearly carbon budgets would be introduced. We would have to get advice from the CCC as to what those carbon budgets would involve and what they would look like. The intention would be to publish another climate change plan after that point.

There is still an awful lot of work to be undertaken on that, but, as colleagues around the table will, no doubt, be aware, the acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Gillian Martin, will provide an update for MSPs next week, to provide more information on all of that.

That is the key question, and I know that we have discussed the budget at length. The fact is that we do not have any clarity on what the future budget will be. Obviously, if we are bringing forward policies, we want to make sure that we are adequately resourced to deliver them. We want to be able to deliver on the ambitions that are set out in our vision for agriculture and to implement the change and transformation that we all want. We want to work with our farmers and crofters as they produce food, but to do so in a way that reduces their emissions and also enhances nature and delivers on our ambitions for biodiversity.

We will, of course, keep the committee updated as the proposals develop. Again, I cannot say what will be in the carbon budget, what that budget will look like or what advice we will receive. We need to see what information and advice we get and look to develop the plans and proposals from there.

I hope that we will be in an appropriate position before that point, if we are able to enter those discussions. We would hope to have some knowledge of the future picture in advance of that.

Yes, of course there is. I mentioned, as an example, reaching a veterinary agreement with the EU, which would be very beneficial. We are also trying to remove some of the red tape that has been a real barrier to trading for us. We could certainly improve on that. We also want to continue to seek improvements with the EU on youth mobility, because there are opportunities to enhance that as well. Within all of that, we want to make sure that we get the best deal possible, whether that is for our fisheries or for other industries in Scotland.

Broadly, there are outstanding issues with the UK Government when it comes to the border target operating model. When the model was published, we accepted it as being in all our best interests, because we need biosecurity measures in place at our borders and there was an unlevel playing field between how goods that were going out of the UK and how those that were coming in were treated. However, there are gaps in that, which is what we have been trying to pursue with the UK Government.

I hope to hold discussions with the new secretary of state about a gap on our west coast when it comes to what is moving from Ireland and Northern Ireland. That has happened because of interactions with the Windsor framework. The checks were due to be implemented by the end of October, which does not leave much time for industry to prepare. We have been seeking some clarity on that, and I believe that that timeline is scheduled to move. That is part of the discussions that we will have, because we need that urgent clarity for industry so that it knows what to expect and whether the timeline will shift.

Those things will form part of our discussions with the UK Government, because we want to make sure that we have in place an appropriate balance of measures that does not put an undue burden on our traders.

A number of different factors are at play. We have been delivering some outstanding work. Some of it cuts across other portfolios and the work that both Alasdair Allan and Gillian Martin lead on in relation to the implementation of the management measures for the outstanding marine protected areas and for our priority marine features.

The consultation has opened on the offshore MPA areas and what they will look like, but there are still the inshore areas to consider. That work has taken longer than anticipated, purely because it is really complex. It covers more than 160 different sites and seeks to assess the impacts of any management measures. It has been a complex piece of work that it is undoubtedly taking time to deliver.

From a resources point of view, there are pressures on head count across the whole of Government and we have to work towards our priorities as best we can. We are managing to make progress on some of our key priority areas as quickly as we can, but there is no getting around the natural complexities that exist in some of that work, which can prevent it from being accelerated.

Absolutely. I met previously with Jimmy Buchan, and with Andrew Brown more recently, to discuss some of those matters, because I recognise just how acute some of the pressures are that the processing sector in particular is facing. It has, in fact, been facing those issues for a number of years now, and we have been trying to get some sort of resolution during that time.

We raised issues with the visa requirements, including the language thresholds, with the then UK Government in a previous forum. We had seen that in other sectors where there were shortages, specific visas had been allowed, but the same was not being applied to fisheries. We did not think that that was fair and tried to challenge it; unfortunately, though, we did not get anywhere with those proposals.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier in relation to progressing some of our other proposals, such as a rural visa pilot, I hope that, in the spirit of the new engagement that we will have with the current UK Government, we can reopen and revisit some of those issues with a view to finding practical solutions to try to address these problems. That would really help our industry, particularly our processing sector. I have not had those discussions with the new UK Government yet, but I will certainly be engaging with it on that.

The committee has previously asked me about the programme for secondary legislation. As further detail on that emerges, we will provide as clear a timeline as we can. We have, of course, obligations, under the legislation, on the development of the code of practice. We have started early engagement on it, and we are due to consult on it this year. My hope is that we will publish the code next year.

The rural delivery plan is an entirely separate strand of work. The plan has not been published yet, and the commitment is to lay a plan during this parliamentary session. A number of key strands of work are being pursued as part of that, and we are also developing a new national islands plan. That largely relates to outlining how we are delivering and how we will deliver for rural Scotland in relation to the policies that we will be introducing.

The rural delivery plan discusses how we can improve evidence-based decision making by establishing some of the key performance indicators that we need in order to monitor progress, and saying how we improve communication tools and pursue rural mainstreaming and the development of a rural lens toolkit that we can use. That work is still very much on-going. We have a ministerial working group that is helping to take that work forward.

The plan will build on work that has been done previously, such as that which has been done by the National Council of Rural Advisers and the recommendations that came out of that work. The intention is not to duplicate what has been done before but to build on it. We are still on track for publishing the plan, and we have committed to doing that during this session of Parliament. I will be making the committee aware of that.

We have not had the budget for the forthcoming year, but that is all subject to discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government.