Chamber and committees

I am happy to provide an update. I do not know whether you want me to run through every single action, but I point the committee to the delivery plan for each of the actions that is set out in the future fisheries management strategy, which we published last year. That shows where we are against the strategy and how we intend to deliver against the actions. I will draw out some key pieces of work as examples, and Annabel Turpie will, no doubt, want to add to those.

The first action in the future fisheries management strategy is about promoting fisheries as a safe career of choice for people. We have provided Seafish with more than £400,000 to deliver free safety training for the fishing industry, and we have spent about £2.1 million on encouraging new entrants into the industry, which was funded through the marine fund Scotland.

Work has been progressing in other areas, too. The future catching policy is listed as an action in the strategy. We consulted on that last year and we are due to publish the results of the consultation soon. It was quite a technical consultation. However, when we look to implement the policies, we expect to see some positive steps forward.

There are also actions in the strategy around local resilience, connecting to local markets and enhancing global markets for seafood. We have published a seafood strategy. We have talked about the importance of our seafood trade, of confidence in it and of its resilience, but our policy commitments relating to remote electronic monitoring and vessel tracking are important in delivering that, too. We have had a consultation on remote electronic monitoring, which we launched at the same time as the future policy consultation, and we hope to be in a position to publish the results of that soon. Many pieces of work have been under way.

There have been further developments in relation to that since the delivery plan was published. We have talked about strengthening our regional inshore fisheries groups. There has been a refresh of that network and we appointed six new chairpeople. We also extended the groups’ reach out to 12 nautical miles. That is one development.

We have also done a refresh of our fisheries management and conservation group and how it operates. That is about getting all the different stakeholders round the table and trying to move forward on a lot of the key areas and issues that we face. That group has been established with terms of reference. We are using a hub-and-spoke model, so we have the main FMAC group and four sub-groups that feed into it. We have one on inshore fisheries, one on scallops and one on fishing and climate change. The name of the last one has escaped me, but I am sure that Annabel Turpie can provide that information.

As well as the refresh of that group and the regional inshore fisheries groups, we hope to undertake a review of the regional inshore fisheries groups in the summer next year, just to see how all of that is operating.

Absolutely, but it is in everybody’s best interests to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries. That is what we want to see, and it is what the industry wants to see going forward.

We are seeing some fantastic pieces of work around our coastline that are being led by fishers. We have a couple of inshore fisheries pilots at the moment and, so far, they are showing us really positive results. There is the Mull crab box and we have one in the Outer Hebrides as well. That brings me back to what Annabel Turpie said about working with the different sectors, bringing all those different threads together and seeing how we can move forward.

I think that everybody appreciates that our seas are changing—there is no doubt about that—but we all want to ensure that we have a sustainable sector and sustainable industries. Ultimately, that is what we want to work together to achieve.

I would be happy to. Work has been undertaken by Marine Scotland scientists together with scientists from the University of Strathclyde to look initially at the stock assessments for cod, haddock and whiting. They have been collating the information that we have received from scientific surveys as well as information from commercial fisheries. With that information, they are looking to develop qualitative stock assessments.

Annabel Turpie, do you want to add anything further about the monitoring?

Are you asking about the transitional amendments that we need for the current schemes?

Yes. In addition, if improvements can be made to the grant schemes that we currently have, we want to make those at the same time. The committee will probably be aware that we have had a consultation, which closed within the past couple of weeks, about improvements to the forestry grant scheme—about what we can do to remove some of the barriers that people face in accessing that scheme and trying to overcome those, because we want the integration of more trees on farms. We have an integrating trees network to which we like to direct people, to show exactly how that can be done. Such opportunities are really important.

I emphasise that I recognise the importance of the less favoured area support that we currently provide. That is why we have committed to maintaining the levels of payment as they are at the moment. We will continue our work on that, as we set out in our route map, as we look to build the future framework.

We are not pushing that down the line. In the route map that I published in February, I set out a very clear timescale for introducing changes and making information about those changes available to enable people to plan. The route map sets out a very clear timetable to try to give people comfort with regard to information.

However, I should say that we will not be removing any payment without there being clarity. As I have said before in the chamber—and I am keen to make the commitment again and to be clear about this—we are not going to see any cliff edges in support, with people one day accessing schemes that are gone the next. I absolutely appreciate the importance of the issue, of people’s ability to plan their future and their business, and of the need for longer-term clarity and security. Indeed, that is why we have committed to maintaining direct payments. We recognise how important that support is to our food production and in enabling our farmers and crofters to continue to undertake the good work that they are already doing. Again, our route map sets out a clear timetable to show when more of that information will be available.

I do not know where those suggestions have come from, but I am more than happy to follow the matter up with you and to hear those concerns.

As I said in last week’s debate, I absolutely recognise the importance of livestock farming to our island communities. In some parts of the country, people do not have as many opportunities to look at other measures that they could take or other types of farming that they could undertake. There will always be a place for livestock farming in Scotland, because we do it well here, and that will continue into the future. Again, I am more than happy to follow up those issues.

I also want to ensure that our communication is clear. It is frustrating to hear the sort of example that you have highlighted. I want the messages that we send out to reach everyone. However, if you are hearing those things, that must not be the case. I want to hear any suggestions that people might have for improving our communications, because we are looking to do that as much as we can.

We have many examples that we could highlight. There are the different networks—our agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network, our integrating trees network and so on—in which so much good practice is being undertaken, and there is also the Farm Advisory Service. We are looking to engage with as many people as possible, and that is what we have tried to do by providing more clarity and information through the route map. I would direct people to look at that and the list of measures that we have published for an indication of what things might look like in the future. We are also actively seeking feedback, because we want to hear how those measures might work.

Key barriers related to knowledge and support. Progress is needed on that. Access to funding was also identified as a potential barrier. Perhaps George Burgess has further information to add.

Those elements have only just launched. On the individual actions that have been taken on the back of audits, I gave the figures for support that has been claimed; I do not know whether George Burgess wants to come in on that.

Before we get to that, I agree with you that it is all very well to undertake a test, but the actions that are taken on the back of it are what is really important. As part of the soil testing, we offer £250 in personal development funding to enable and encourage upskilling, which allows people to undertake nutrient management planning.

I detect a criticism from you on the funding that has been offered for animal health and welfare. However, that scheme was not designed by us alone but with our farmers and crofters, our chief vet and other key stakeholders. Together, we looked at a package that would incentivise the sector. We did not just want to undertake a plan; we also considered meaningful actions that would have an impact for those businesses. That is how the programme was developed. From the feedback that I have heard—I do not know whether George Burgess has more information—the package of available support has been well received.