Chamber and committees

First, I will outline what the budget equates to in cash terms. The total funding was £905.741 million for the previous financial year and the funding is £864.618 million for this financial year. I do not know whether that answers your question.

In relation to pillar 1, direct payments to farmers and crofters total £474.7 million. In relation to pillar 2, the funding for the less favoured area support scheme equates to £65.5 million, which is unchanged from the previous year. We have a number of other schemes that fall within that, including the crofting agricultural grant scheme. I hope that that answers your question and provides the information that you are looking for.

George Burgess wants to add to that.

Again, you are not seeing that right across the piece. There is no getting around how difficult the decisions right across the piece have been with this—

As I have said, within that and the other pillar 1 payments, we have £2.7 million going to the producer organisations that support our fruit and vegetable sector. I completely understand the concern that you have outlined, but again that has been identified as a key priority and we have been able to meet the needs of those programmes and to secure that funding for the interim while we look to transition to what future support might look like. That is where the £2.7 million will be critical.

First, it is not a case of either/or. We were talking specifically about the agricultural transformation fund, which now more accurately reflects the budget spend that we have had over previous years. Ideally, it is within everyone’s best interests for us to utilise all money and budgets that we have available to us.

I have talked about how difficult the capital funding situation has been. Trying to prioritise which schemes are funded and what level of funding they should receive has been a very difficult exercise in this budget settlement. We are providing more funding for the agricultural transformation programme than we were able to spend last year.

On how we can improve uptake, we are trying hard to increase uptake, particularly in relation to the national test programme. You mentioned carbon audits and soil tests. We also have funding available for the animal health and welfare plans. We want there to be an increase in the uptake of that support. The funding is available, and it is within everyone’s best interests for that funding to be fully utilised.

We are doing as much as possible to incentivise that. We have really tried to step up our communications during the past year, whether that was through the emails that we sent out or by increasing our physical presence in lots of places, such as at various agricultural shows and marts, where people could find out about the support that is available, as well as have the opportunity to discuss the route map and all the other information that we have published. There needs to be greater awareness raising of that.

When I was at the committee last year, I asked members whether there are any means of communication that we are not using or any ways that you thought that we could be communicating better. I am more than happy to hear suggestions as to what more we can do, because we want the uptake of those schemes to increase. The budget for the national test programme allows for increased demand and for greater uptake of the schemes that we are funding so far.

I clarify that that funding is over three years.

To be honest, I would have liked to see an increase in several of the budget lines. However, given the capital envelope and the overall funding envelope, it is about how best to prioritise within that. We have tried to minimise any reductions in those areas as far as we possibly can.

It is important to highlight the overall research programme, which has had a broad envelope of about £50 million a year, but we support other schemes that encourage research and innovation, including in farmers directly. We have maintained the funding for the knowledge transfer and innovation fund in this budget. Again, we want to see the uptake of those funds and see that innovation, that research support and, of course, that peer-to-peer learning, which is important.

To go back to your first point, I agree about the importance of the FPMC scheme. I have visited several businesses that have received funding from that in the past, where investment would not otherwise have been possible, to upgrade facilities in several ways. Those businesses would not have been able to develop without the injection of funding that we provided. The scheme has been vital in that regard, so we will look for any available opportunity to restore that funding as a priority.

We have undertaken a great deal of work on the small farms grant scheme. George Burgess will correct me if I am wrong on this, but I think that it was one of the most difficult funds to access, which meant that it was largely underspent. I think that we had £1 million budgeted for it. In the past it was a means-tested fund and, although it was to support small farmers, it was one of the hardest-to-access funds.

We therefore did an extensive piece of work with a variety of stakeholders, and I announced during the Christmas recess that we will be launching a small producers pilot fund in place of that. The funding that had been used previously for the small farms grant scheme will now be used for the small producers pilot.

We have engaged with stakeholders on what would be the best support and the most useful in helping small producers. There are a couple of abattoir projects that will be funded within that. There have been calls for a website for small producers. We are also looking at specific packages that could be used in relation to skills and further development. There are several strands within that, but it is an exciting piece of work that will potentially allow us to better utilise the funding in the way that people would like to see.

In relation to science and enforcement, when I appeared before the committee previously, I spoke about our science and innovation strategy, which was launched just last week in Aberdeen. The strategy sets out six outcomes that we want to achieve by best focusing our resources on science and maximising the value of that resource. The marine directorate uses world-leading marine science, so we need to utilise that resource as best we can. A big part of that involves collaborating with others, including research institutions and academic institutions. We should look more widely within Scotland, as well as internationally, to see how we can work collaboratively.

With regard to the directorate’s overall funding for marine science, about £9 million relates to the science around fisheries. The vast majority of that funding—between £6 million and £6.5 million—is for the two research vessels that we use for our work.

Another critical part of the marine directorate’s work relates to compliance and enforcement. We have, I think, 18 coastal offices, two surveillance aeroplanes, three MPVs and two rigid inflatable boats that we can utilise as a resource. The overall budget for enforcement and compliance is about £30 million, of which just over £11 million is for our MPVs. That level of investment is broadly similar to what was provided over the previous financial year.

Like all vessels, MPVs have an overall lifespan, so we have to factor that in to our planning. Our research vessels are very specific—the Scotia is one of our key vessels—so we must ensure that we have such resources in the future. Those considerations, of course, form part of our future planning.

I ask Dave Signorini whether he has more information on that.