Chamber and committees

Well, I think that you can make that assessment. In the letter that you sent to the committee, you said that £46.1 million

“remains to be returned to the portfolio and further details of how this return will continue will be set out in the Scottish Budget 2025-26.”

That is an indication that you know something of what is going on. Do you plan to move any other parts from uncommitted spend in the rural budget in the future, such as in the 2025-26 budget?

It is just that we have been told that

“The Scottish rural payments system is currently missing opportunities to fulfil national policy and strategy aims”,

and various people have made the point that some of the national outcomes are not being met because the payment strategy is not being adhered to. I suppose that it is just expanding on the points that I am trying to make.

For example, what if there were low take-up by stakeholders of some of the schemes and the payment strategy, I suppose, went out of kilter? Has there been any research into changing that timeline or the payment strategy, because of low uptake? What are you going to do to ensure good uptake, so that you can make the most of what you are trying to achieve through that strategy?

I am looking at the strategy timetable, although I have only the figures from 9 February 2024. I see that the regulatory target for all the different schemes is 95.24 per cent, and I am just trying to work out whether that target is being met in all areas.

Okay, so the committee can be confident that the money that is allocated to the Scottish rural development programme will be spent. The extra 5 per cent—I use the word “extra” loosely—will be spent, making a total of 100 per cent.

Just to be clear, does the £620.7 million remove the £61 million that was made in savings?

I am referring to the £61 million that was made in savings in the 2023-24 line.

Will any forthcoming decisions be subject to the negative procedure?

Good morning, Mr Fairlie. Did the Scottish Government consult on the regulations? If not, why not?

Yes, but the committee does not have access to what has been said and fed back in the ARIOB, so we have no idea about what the feedback is in that co-development, which leaves our scrutiny of the SSI to a wing and a prayer, really.

I cannot see how the co-design argument can be used in this case, because it seems as though the Scottish Government is relying on the previous consultation. My question is to Jim Fairlie. Have you read the previous consultation responses?