 Good morning everyone and welcome to the 26th meeting of the rural affairs islands and natural environment committee in 2022. I would like all those using electronic devices to switch some to silent please. Our first item of business today is to decide whether to take item 4 in private and whether to consider the consideration of a draft pre-budget letter i Sch Heather o'r Philosophy of Research. E inventor should be taken in private our next meeting. Ir second item of business is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for P cz rural affairs and islands, as part of our pre-budgets scrutiny. Welcome to the meeting with Mary GU Hadley on the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and islands, George Burgess. The director for agriculture and rural economy, Alan Gibb, the head of seafood Clarkson, the joint interim head of division from rural and islands futures, and she tell meara head of strategy and engagement for portfolio budget and spending review. We've got about 90 minutes for questions this morning and I'll kick off. Can I ask whether the ambitions and objectives of the national island plan are being sufficiently supported by the Scottish Government's budget? First of all, we just want to start, convener, by talking about just the significant situation that we find ourselves in relation to the budget and I know that the finance secretary will be bringing forward the emergency budget in due course and the significant constraints that we're working under as well. So this is a really difficult and challenging time both for my portfolio as well as across government too. But in relation to your question about delivering against the objectives of the national islands plan, I believe that both within my portfolio and across government we are doing that as best we possibly can. We obviously have the 13 strategic objectives, we have over 100 commitments in relation to delivering those objectives, but I think both from the spend within my own portfolio, we have the island specific funding as part of that. But there's also the spend from right across other government departments as well, whether that's in relation to rural housing within Shona Robison's portfolio, when we look at the commitment to that island's growth deal and the £50 million that's been committed there, as well as other funding streams too, I think that we are doing as best we can to deliver against those strategic objectives that are within the national islands plan. Just on that, we heard from local authorities last week and there were some concerns over the competitive nature of funding. What's your views on the difficulties given the resource issues that some local authorities have in getting the funding that they require? It was really interesting to go through the evidence that the committee had heard last week as well, because I know, obviously, that we ran the competitive model for the funding this year, but we'd also run the direct allocations process the year before. It's important for us to hear that feedback and to see and find out how local authorities have found that process. I do think that, like anything, there's pros and cons to either approach, and I think that all of that is learning that we can take forward as we're looking to develop future years of the island's programme as well. I know that some local authorities would probably have received less than what they would have received through the direct allocations process, whereas other local authorities will have received more through the competitive process as well. We're able to receive quite a significant chunk of funding through that. When you look at Orkney Islands Council, for example, the £1.5 million that was allocated there, which was over and above what they would have received through a direct allocation model, I think that it's really important for us to listen to that feedback to determine how we take this future and forward. In relation to why we decided to go with the competitive funding model for this current year, it was based on trying to ensure that we were delivering the funding as effectively and efficiently as we could within the timescales that were available. I know that, from the evidence that the committee heard, there were concerns around the fact that there were local government elections, but, of course, we also want to ensure that there is enough time to develop bids and that those bids are going to be successful and deliverable within the timescales that we're working to. It was also built on a model of the Regeneration Capital Grant fund as well, which local authorities are familiar with. That's why we adopted that model, but, again, I think that it's really important that we take that learning into future years. In future years, what do you see the changes that will come about to the policies that you have about delivering funding? It really is just a case of taking that learning. As I say, there are pros and cons to either of those approaches that we've taken, but I think that it's really important that we work with the local authorities on the projects that hadn't been successful this time round. I think that we've had 15 applications to the fund, 11 of which were successful, so that we can see what work can be done to ensure that we can continue to take these important projects forward. That's where the work with the Scottish Futures Trust has been really important in working with local authorities and their experience in going through the process. I think that having their expertise and advice, which I think that hopefully the committee picked up from the session last week as well, which I do think that our local authority partners find very helpful, we can take that learning going forward. I do obviously want to ensure that we are doing a full evaluation of the scheme for the past year in comparison to the previous year as well to determine how we take that forward in future years. You've alluded to some of the budgetary pressures that the Scottish Government is currently facing. We know about the impact of inflation on the budget in real terms, which is a 5.2 per cent reduction. First of the challenges, what is the rationale that you used in your budget in terms of coping with and prioritising in the face of that situation? Absolutely. We can't underestimate the scale of the challenge that's being presented to my portfolio and right across the Scottish Government, so the inflationary pressures that you're talking about there, we've seen since the UK Government's spending review in December last year a £1.7 billion shortfall when you take all those inflationary pressures into account. That was at a time when inflation was setting about 3 per cent, and we're obviously looking at the rates that we're experiencing now. It has been particularly challenging, but I think that, certainly within my own portfolio, we're trying to ensure that we're giving as much stability and clarity to people as we can, and we're trying to protect our work that's being delivered through the islands programme, ensuring that we are continuing to deliver on that, to deliver across the strategic objectives. Of course, when we look at the overall Government objectives too, we've got to try and tackle poverty, we've got to try and help people through this cost-of-living crisis. I know that the Deputy First Minister will be making more announcements on that through the emergency budget review, too. My priority within that has been to look out for the communities in our rural and island areas, and to ensure that, when it comes to particularly the agriculture side as well, we've been continuing to do what we can to ensure that there's that cash flow there, because we know that that has been a huge concern of the industry. Just as an example of that, there were calls to bring forward the payments that we did this year to their earliest ever level. We've since made payments to more than 14,000 businesses and paid out nearly £330 million, so we've tried to do what we can within the parameters that we have to try and ease the cash flow worries where they exist and to deliver on their priorities for our rural and island communities. Does the Government, in that case, have its own source of information about the kind of inflation and the pressures that exist for rural businesses and agricultural businesses? Has that been evoluted there? How has that shaped or determined what you've done in your budget and portfolio? Particularly when we look at agriculture as an example of that and the term agfalaation, which is used there, there's just the tremendous increase in input costs right across the bit, whether that's feed, fuel and fertilizer. For some of those areas, of course, it's not possible for us to make meaningful interventions because the main levers rests with the UK Government, and that's where we've tried to do what we can both within the portfolio and across Scottish Government to mitigate those pressures where we can. Again, without the full powers I'm able to do that, it's not possible to take that meaningful action where we know what's needed. We do obviously welcome the package that's been introduced by the UK Government, but unfortunately it's only for six months in relation to the energy relief, and we don't know what's going to happen beyond that time, so I think that that will be of little comfort to those that are really struggling at the moment. You've answered much of the questions that I was going to ask there, cabinet secretary. The £1.7 billion inflationary deduction or loss of funding that the Scottish Government are dealing with, I was going to ask you how that's going to affect your overall budget, because I know from businesses that, despite the fact that the £300 million has been delivered earlier than possible to help with that cash flow, how do you see your budget being affected by that £1.7 billion reduction in the Scottish Government's funding? Well, you'll have seen the impact from the figures that have been published, and in the statement that the Deputy First Minister had provided to Parliament as well, and it's been incumbent on all of us to identify the savings that are possible within our portfolio so that we can help with the cost of living crisis across Government, too. We know that one of the key issues for the agriculture sector was about that cash flow, as I said in my response to Alasdair Allan there, which is why we listened and did what we could to try and bring forward the payments to as early possible a day as we could, and I think that that cash flow should help provide some security to the industry at the moment, but, of course, those pressures haven't gone away. I talked about the prices of, well, all input costs have risen right across the piece, and we know that people are struggling, so that's where we've done what we can within the powers that we have to try and ease with some of those issues, but, again, I think that we need to see that action at a UK Government level as well in relation to the meaningful interventions that can be made. Yeah, okay. There are going to be serious problems in the coming year with fertiliser costs, feed costs, fuel costs. Those things are going to put enormous pressure on agriculture, and I get that we've got that right across the country, but I am genuinely concerned about where that's going to lead us going forward, and that's more a statement than a question to come. Thank you. Given that the islands plan funding, which was announced last year, dedicated £30 million to be spent over five years, why has the Government decided to distribute a single year round? We've also heard that councils said that island program funding hasn't been sufficient to deliver the ambitions of the plan. Can you also give us your opinion on whether a multi-year approach would be more appropriate? To be honest, I would actually agree with that, but unfortunately we're not in a position where we can do that, because we don't have that certainty of funding for future years, and it's just simply not possible for delivered in that timescale, so I think I'm really sympathetic to those arguments, and I think ideally we would be running multi-year rounds, but unfortunately, as I say, it's just not possible because we get yearly allocations from the UK Government, and it's obviously different to when we were members of the EU, where we had that seven-year clarity of funding and it was possible for us to be able to plan in relation to that as well, so that does make things, I know, difficult for local authorities in relation to that, but it's just not possible for us to consider that at the moment. Okay, we heard that previously the budget was supposed to be £30 million, but in the spending review that was reduced to £25.8 million, so that's a reduction of £4.2 million. How do you then budget to provide extra funding to look at contracts that have already been given, so increased fuel charges or construction charges? We heard that there was extra budget available for that, so how much money have you set aside to assist in the tendering process where contracts, for example, fuel costs? I know that Forest and Land Scotland are reviewing some of the contracts that they've got and they're providing extra budget to cover that. Is there any allocation of budget that you're considering putting aside to ensure that those projects go ahead, given the rising costs? Yes, that's built into the programme. I'm sure Erika will correct me if I'm wrong on the figures in relation to that, but I believe that within the island's programme for this year there was nearly £200,000, which should have been set aside for contingencies. I see Erika nodding her head, so I'm glad my figures aren't off on that, but we do build that in recognising the difficulties that you've alluded to there. Okay, Jim Frearley. Thanks, Wersker. I'm going to come back to the multiyear budgeting. Do you only get allocated in a year on your basis? Is that why you cannot give multiyear funding to local authorities? Yes, that's why it's not possible for us to do that, and I think that we get indicative allocations. I think that at one point I would want to make clear as well that what we see through the capital spending review and the resource spending review aren't budgets. Those figures are brought forward based on a number of assumptions, and we still go through the normal annual budget cycles. I would also emphasise as well that we don't have any clarity on funding beyond 2025, so it's not possible for us to plan in detail beyond that point, because we don't know what our allocations are going to be. What we've set out in the capital spending review and the resource spending review are the overall funding envelopes, but we are still to work through the detail of that once we know what the actual allocations are going to be. Are those allocations indicative rather than set in stone, so they could be changed at the last minute so that you then have to make adjustments? I would like to be an optimist. I hope that the figures may improve over incoming years, from the way things are heading. I don't think that that will be the case, but yes, they are indicative. They are the overall funding envelopes that we believe we may have, and we work on that basis. However, the committee will no doubt be aware from the budget process that we went through last year as well, that we are to go through the detail of that and bring forward the budget and our proposals for that in the normal fashion in relation to the legislation that is brought forward. It does make it very difficult for anybody to try to look at a long-term project, doesn't it? It absolutely does, and I would agree with that as well. I think that that comes through in the evidence and the feedback that we hear. I think that it can be really difficult and I appreciate the difficulties that are there for businesses that apply to some of our grant funding rounds and the tight timescales that are there to turn that around. I talked earlier about the model that we adopted for the islands programme and why we adopted that model to try and ensure that we were delivering the projects that were deliverable within the timescales that we had. I am absolutely sympathetic to that, but, unfortunately, we are in the position where it is not possible for us to open up those multi-year rounds, because we do not have the clarity and the seven-year funding rounds that we previously had as members of the EU. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Last week, we heard from the three councils and local authorities that gave evidence that, based on their first experience with the competitive bidding process, it did not best support communities. I wondered what your thoughts are on the competitive bidding approach. Do you think that it achieves the right balance of funding national priorities, while supporting local decision making? I think that it strikes that balance, and I think that that was another benefit of having the competitive model, because it is being able to ensure that we are aligning the national priorities with the needs of our communities on the ground. I talked about, in response to the first question, one of those projects that we funded in Orkney, which was building a nursery there. You heard about that and your evidence about the impact that that has on retaining the population in Orkney, and just how critical a need that was. I think that it does have benefits in relation to that, and I think that the work that SFT did as well in working with local authorities and having their expertise has been really helpful throughout that process as well. It was modelled on the regeneration capital grant fund schemes, because that is a model that is more familiar to local authorities in terms of the whole process. It is one of the things that there are pros and cons on either side in relation to that, or the direct allocation model as well. However, I would like to think, and I do think, from some of the projects that were successful in those rounds that has delivered both on the national priorities, but as well as what our communities in Ireland's need is. Thank you, convener, and thanks, panel, for coming today. As Ariane Burgess talked about the competitive process and how that may or may not have worked for some of the councils involved, we got really clear information from the Scottish Futures Trust about the relationships that had been built up between the councils and the communities. I would be interested to hear if you have any thoughts on that. There was also a bit of discussion about the pipeline of projects, and you referenced earlier that projects that perhaps did not pass this round or were not successful this round are still being looked at. I do not know if you have got anything to add to that. I would not want anybody to think that the work that has been undertaken in relation to those projects has been wasted. I do not underestimate, for a moment, just how much work goes into preparing those bids and putting that forward. I know that there were various issues around that that the committee heard about last week, too. Again, one of the key things from this process in working with the SFT is ensuring that there is that on-going dialogue to see, well, if the bids were not successful this time, how can we get them into a situation where they could potentially be successful for either future downs of the programme and what we are looking to deliver? I think that that on-going work and continuing that dialogue is really important. There was one point raised by my councillor, Gailin Bute, about the separation taking it away from island communities. Maybe that was not in the spirit of the islands act. I would just be interested to hear your thoughts on that. That is where we have trialled. There have been different approaches that we have taken to other funds that we have run as well. For the islands programme previously, we had three separate strands allocated in a number of different ways. Again, it is really important that we take the learning from that. I know that there are other funds that are directly available for communities to bid straight into. I think that it depends on the fund and the objectives of those funds that we do. There are others that we have just done where the local authority is the lead partner in relation to that. I think that it is important sometimes to have that mix. We certainly do not want to cut people out of the process. We want to make sure that the projects that are coming forward are genuinely what communities need. I do not think that it is for us to dictate to communities that certain infrastructure that they need across all our island communities are all unique and different in their own ways and face some similar challenges. It is really important that the projects that are brought forward are organic in that sense and come from communities. It is important to have that mix. I value the feedback that we get and the learning that we have taken from the previous rounds of the programme to ensure that when we are bringing forward future years of funding, we are delivering it in a way that works most importantly for our island communities. It is not set in stone because I think that the evidence that the committee took was really important. It is important for me to hear that and to see that and exactly how they found that process so that we take that learning into future years. I am going back to the competitive bidding approach. Obviously, some island local authorities will have more expertise and capacity to bid for funding than others. How do you ensure a level playing field? Yes, that was a point that I took away from the committee's session last week. I understand the pressures that local authorities are under in relation to that. I also hear about the different funds that are out there too and how that can be a challenge in and of itself. That is where the working with the Scottish Future Trust has been helpful in that regard, too. That is also why we wanted to work with them in relation to the surrounding funding because of the experience, the expertise that they have in delivering infrastructure and working with partners. It was really good to hear that feedback last week and hearing from some of them about the advice and the help and assistance that they had been able to get from SFT. I think that that was really important. We are happy to work with local authorities when it comes to that capacity issue, recognising the challenges that can exist there. I would come back to the point about the model and why we selected that as well. We wanted to ensure that it was not going to be a process that would be completely alien or overly burdensome to local authorities, which is why we decided to modulate on that approach as well, to hopefully make that a bit easier. I recognise the challenges that were picked up last week and that is where that feedback is really important. On the back of that, I suppose that not only do local authorities have different resources available to them, but different communities, different islands and individual islands within those authorities have different opportunities to make their voice heard. I wonder how you managed to hear the diversity of islands within local authorities. I would say that, even within our islands team—the director has made a point to the committee previously—our islands team is predominantly based on islands as well and lives within the communities and is tuned into getting that feedback in relation to the panel that we had for the islands programme as well. Everybody within that has had experience of either living in or working in islands as well, which is really important. It is vital that we try and do what we can to hear the different voices that are out there. If the committee has any different suggestions as to how we might better do that, if that is not adequately being done, we are more than happy to take that feedback and learning from it. That is certainly a really good point, and I would come back to the point that I made in response to Jenny Minto's questions as well, that we want the projects delivered through this to have an impact on communities, to grow organically from that as well and work alongside them in the delivery of that. I hope that we are at least getting some of that right, but I am more than happy to hear from the committee on that one. To look at that a little bit more, we heard repeatedly about the cluttered and the exceedingly complex nature of funding, particularly around funding for islands. What interventions have you made to ensure that the forthcoming budget deals with that, being cluttered, and what are you going to do to solve that? It is particularly important, given the resource issues that we see local authorities experiencing at the moment. I am sympathetic to those points that have been raised by local authorities last week and recognise how challenging that can be. I think that, certainly within my portfolio, we will ultimately aim to try to make the processes for the different funding streams to ensure that they are as clear as possible and that they are not too cumbersome on local authorities either. As we have already said through the islands programme this time, ensuring that we are there to either help work with them or ensure that there is the capacity there to do that through working with partners such as SFT as well. I am more than happy to take that feedback, but sometimes this is outwith our control altogether. A couple of examples of that are the UK Government levelling up fund, which, particularly for the islands programme, cut across it at the point when applications were coming forward. We have also seen that, for example, in the marine space as well and the £100 million of funding, even though it is a devolved area but where the UK Government has made that direct spend. Of course, any extra funding that we get is to be welcomed, but I think that not when it is done without any consultation with the devolved Administrations within whose responsibility those policy areas lie. If it had been given to the devolved Administrations, we can align it with our priorities rather than having conflicting processes or conflicting priorities that clutter that landscape and make it even more difficult for people to apply to those funds. We have to remember that Scotland has two Governments, and they both have priorities. Yes, but we have specific powers, and it should be within the Scottish Government's power. We should be given that funding to allocate in line with our policy priorities. Thank you, convener. I am tempted to say that Scotland has two Governments, but only one of them is elected. How does that impact on the work of the Scottish Government having money that is spent on those priorities, which until now has always been regarded as devolved money? It adds to that cluttered landscape. It cuts across some of the objectives that we would like to achieve. I think that prioritisation can be completely different between the different pots of funding. When we look to the highlands and the islands, we remember that the EU was a high priority area in relation to funding because of the remote and rural nature and the very specific challenges that our rural communities face. Where that was a high priority within the EU, it is certainly not as high a priority when it comes to spending through the shared prosperity fund, where the allocations fall far short of what we should have received and what we would have received, where we are still members of the EU. At the end of the day, like I said, when it comes to fisheries, that area is devolved. If there is money to be there, it should be given to the Scottish Government to distribute in line with our own funding priorities. Given the fact that you have levelling up funds coming into areas where you are then having to work around them, have you made representations to the UK Government to say that that money should become directly to you so that you can then deliver it to the priorities that the Scottish Government has set out in these devolved areas? Yes, I have. I have made regular representations to my counterparts in the UK Government as have other ministers. I think that it is the business minister who has been dealing with that in relation to the shared prosperity funding as well, so we do regularly make those representations. In that case, can we have the UK Government Minister for Agriculture come to this committee to answer the questions as to why the Scottish Government has been bypassed? I think that the job of this committee is to scrutinise and hold the Scottish Government to account. I think that that is our role. Absolutely. The Scottish Government is being held to account. The cabinet secretary has been here on numerous occasions. I think that the UK Government, if it is bypassing the Scottish Government, surely is within our remit to ask questions of why the UK Government is making it more difficult for the Scottish Government. I think that Mr Fairlie will recognise that we did have the Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Agriculture at a previous meeting, and there is an intention to have it at a future meeting, so I think that that is already decided. We have had him here before, but I have a new minister for rural affairs in Westminster. There is a whole new budget. They have crashed the Elm's decisions. Mr Fairlie, this meeting is to look at pre-budget scrutiny by the Scottish Government. There are direct effects to what is happening to the UK Government. You raised the fact that Scotland has got two Governments, so we are quite reasonable to request that. As you will know, as I travel around Argyll and Bute, I get a lot of feedback from constituents, specifically on islands, saying that they really understand what their island needs and their community needs are. I am just wondering, looking towards the future and the allocation of money in the future, whatever that may be, how you are going to learn from the responses that we have had with regard to this funding and then also vis-à-vis allocations and learning more deeply from the communities that would argue that they know best. I think that it is really important to see and get that feedback on exactly what those projects have delivered. Have they delivered on the objectives that we would hope to see, but they go through a rigorous assessment process anyway? I hope that they will achieve that, but I think that it is really important that we get that feedback in. As I was saying earlier, we have had two years of funding where we have used the different allocation method, so I think that it is really important that we now take stock of that, take stock of the evidence that the committee has received and heard in relation to how those funds have operated and what they have delivered. Particularly at any feedback, I think, even individually, that you are receiving from your own constituencies and the people that live in the communities about what that is delivering as well. I am always open to hear that and to see what learning we can take for the future. I will take you up on that offer, thank you. Karen Adam. I apologise, convener. What number question is that? The final one in this section, nine. In terms of the economic landscape that we are in at the moment—I know that this has been discussed previously by my colleagues—when it comes to the island's bond policy, what was the main reason for not going ahead with that? Essentially, we have listened to the people that live on our islands, and I think that it was clear from that. When we had gone out to consultation, we had had extensive consultation, and the island's team had been out and engaging with different island communities as well. Even though the overall results to the consultation were almost balanced in terms of how people felt about it, I think that it resoundingly came out from island communities that this was not a policy that they wanted to go ahead. To be honest, quite simply, we listened to that. I do not want to sit here and thrust anything on islands and island communities that they would not want, or a policy that would not end up working. I think that, even though we are not going ahead with that policy, the consultation events that took place were really helpful. It was really important that we had undertaken those events because there was so much that came out of that engagement that we are looking at now and that we would, hopefully, be in a place to try and take forward. That is the thing. The people that live in these communities know them best. There were all sorts of different suggestions that came out of that as to what can help us to retain populations in island areas. That is where we are really focused on that feedback to see what learning we can take and if there are any potential other pilot projects that we can take forward as a result of that feedback. That is great to know. The discussions that we had at the committee last week, there was a lot of focus more on getting the voices of the people living there and that lived experience grassroots being a part of that conversation and the actions that are going to come from that. Have you seen a shift in a change in what people are desiring and wanting for the island communities because of the huge economic shift that is happening at the moment? That is the thing. I know that it is our island communities and our rural areas that are suffering the most as a result of the cost of living crisis. Just by their very nature, whether it is fuel costs and the fact that so many people are dependent on oil for heating and unregulated fuels, where the capping of energy prices does not do much to help in some of those areas. So there are particular issues and challenges that a lot of our rural and island communities face that we are listening to and we are trying to get to grips with as well. I would also highlight that when it comes to the national islands plan, we have an island strategic group and we also have a national islands plan delivery group as well where we try to, while we are engaging first of all in the implementation of the plan, but where we can pick up any potential issues and ensuring that the objectives that we have set out and the commitments that we have there are still relevant and it is really important that we hear that. I would say that one change that we made in relation to the national islands plan delivery group, I launched the Young Islanders Network over the summer in Orkney, inviting that representation from young people on the delivery group as well, which I think is really critical going forward so that we are getting that input and also as wider representative input as we can as well. It is really important for me to hear that and as I say, our islands team officials are based on islands as well because we need to hear that and hear what are the priorities for people living on our islands in rural areas. That is good. Thank you. Is it especially pleased to hear about the young voices being involved? We heard that there is already a 4.2 million reduction in the island's budget, but there is also the 5 million that was originally committed to the island's bond policy. What are your plans to repurpose that? As I say, some of that budget had been allocated to this year, so again that is where we are taking the learnings that we heard from the islands bond consultation and engagement to see how we can progress with that as well. Obviously future budget decisions will be working through that process and no doubt the committee will be interrogating that in some more detail as well. I would say that overall in the capital spending review where there is that reduction, it is important to remember that the capital allocations that we have had have been significantly constrained, so we received £175 million less than we anticipated throughout the UK Government spending review towards the tail end of last year. The capital allocations that we are getting are flat and they are falling over the course of the next few years, so of course we have to try and prioritise as best we can within that. I would say that in relation to the island's plan in particular, we have also allocated resource funding there as well, and I think that it is important not to forget that. We have allocated an additional £10 million worth of resource that is delivering on various different projects that we have. We have appointed six heritage and culture officers across the different areas and across our islands. We also have innovation officer posts that we have applied within UHI just as a couple of examples of how we are utilising that money, so we are trying to utilise the available funds that we do have to deliver for our island communities. The £5 million is just going to go back into the pot. Again, there had only been a small allocation of that within the financial years for spend, but of course we have to see what the allocations are going to be for forthcoming financial years before we take any further decisions. The Deputy First Minister wrote a letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee outlining that there is going to be potential budget savings. Where do you see those budget savings being made within the scope of this committee? The overall budget savings that had been outlined from my portfolio total about £61.5 million. To reiterate that, I cannot enforce enough to the committee just how challenging a position that we find ourselves in in my portfolio and across Government as well in trying to tackle with some of the challenges that we are facing at the moment. Largely, the savings that have been put forward within my portfolio, the vast majority of that was ring-fenced funding, which means that while it is being offered as a saving, it ultimately has to come back to the portfolio because it cannot be spent in other ways. It is just to make that point clear to the committee as well. Some of the other savings that have been put forward were in relation to reforecasts of some of the demand-led schemes that we have as well and controls on recruitment. We have still tried to deliver on our priorities as best we possibly can while recognising the significant challenges that we face. I hope that that gives a broad outline of the savings that have been put forward. I am going back to the convener's point. He was asking if that £5 million will be going back to the central pot. Do you still have it within the gift of your portfolio to be able to make interventions to help it with the cost of living crisis outwith your normal funding while that comes from central Government? I think that that is probably where I highlight. I think that I alluded to that in some of my previous responses to the first initial questions as well. We cannot just look at my portfolio spend in isolation because it is about the wider work that is happening across Government to help with the cost of living crisis. Those interventions, whether that is in relation to discretionary housing payments, what we are doing in relation to fuel poverty, those budgets will be coming from different portfolios, but they will still have an impact right across rural Scotland and in our island communities. We are really trying to deliver those interventions as best we can. If the Government is going to deliver interventions via different channels, but you are also saying that the funding for agriculture or for rural affairs is ring-fenced, that will come back to the rural economy at a later date. Is that what you are saying? Yes, that is right. It will come back to the portfolio. That is exactly what I was just going to ask, Cabinet Secretary. Regarding the ring-fenced funding, which is £33 million, when will that come back and will it be allocated to the same ring-fenced spending that had originally been promised? In relation to the £61.3 million in terms of the cuts that we will see due to some of the spending cuts, how do you think with regards to the promises that you have given farmers in terms of ensuring that they meet their demands in net zero and others, particularly capital funding? How are you going to look at that in the round? Sorry, I am not feeling that well, so I am struggling to get this... Yeah, no problem. Just touching on your first point and just to clarify, yes, it will come back to the portfolio as to when and how that happens. I will be having those discussions with the Deputy First Minister in relation to that, but it will have to be spent within the ring-fenced purpose and within the portfolio area. Like I said, it is ring-fenced funding, it cannot be spent in any other area and it has to be returned to the portfolio, and that is the £33 million worth of savings that had been identified there. As I was saying, the capital allocations that we have been given are flat and falling, and the funding that we would be expecting to receive in future years is coming through just as resource and not as capital. We know that we have particular issues in that regard, but in saying that, I know how vital that capital spend is. I think that the first round that we had of the sustainable agricultural capital grant scheme was very successful in what it achieved. We were facing really constrained budgets over this past financial year, which is why we have had to really target that funding specifically and why we have focused on slurry, in particular given the new regulations that had been brought forward. We had allocated the full £5 million of the agricultural transformation fund into that as well. Another point that I would just want to emphasise is that the savings that have been put forward do not impact on any current spend that we have at the moment and they do not impact on the national test programme. We have committed to that £51 million of funding over the course of this year in the next two years and we are still committed to that and maintaining those levels of funding. Can you explain why there was a drop from £45 million in the agricultural transformation fund in 2021-22, down to just £5 million in 2022-23? Yes, there were a number of factors for that and I think that we discussed some of that when I came from my first budget appearance to the committee as well. I think that I have ground £20 million worth of funding within that was financial transactions and loans. Now we have not been able to use financial transactions. I am sure that Sheetal will keep me right in relation to that and thinking back to it, but because we have to offer, if the Government is to offer loans, we need to do that on a commercial basis and it just simply was not possible to spend that funding. I cannot draw down allocations that I am not able to spend so that is why in relation to that. I have also outlined the significant constraints that we face in relation to capital, which is why I know that it was a cause of great concern to industry as well to see the capital budget available for agricultural transformation be lower than it had been in previous years, but there were all sorts of issues tied into that as well. We know that there were huge delays in terms of getting that equipment, huge backlogs in relation to that. That is not anybody's fault, not industries, not Governments. We had to ensure that we were using the resources that we do have as best as we possibly could. We touched earlier on the inflationary costs across some of the projects and how that will be impacted. In general terms, businesses in fishing, farming and food processing across rural and island areas are obviously all facing significant costs to increases. How is the Scottish Government budget going to support those businesses trying to weather those increases? I absolutely recognise that. Whenever I have been out and about on different visits, I do not think that there is one part in my portfolio or right across the economy or society that is not struggling at the moment. I know that in rural and island areas that has felt particularly acutely because of some of the challenges that we have outlined here. I think that particularly the energy costs, we know that the cost of living crisis is affecting everyone, but I think that our rural communities are more so because of some of those factors. We have tried to help with that as much as we possibly can. I talked about what we had been trying to do in relation to agricultural payments to at least ensure that there is that cash flow coming through to aid businesses as best we possibly can. However, we have also continued to deliver and develop some of our other schemes that I think will have that positive impact. We heard the Marine Fund Scotland this year and over £14 million of funding available through that. We also have programmes such as food processing, marketing and co-operation grant as well, which I believe that announcements are due to be made on that soon. We know how critical those projects are. I hear that all the time about what they have delivered in the past, so I think that it has been really important that we have been able to continue on with those schemes and try to ease the burden on businesses and communities as best we possibly can with the resources that we have available. In terms of the fishing industry and the focus on them at the moment, it really is a struggle for them as you have highlighted that the cost of living crisis for them is mostly energy bills and the impact that that is having on them. In fact, Jimmie Bucking wrote to the—he is a Scottish Seafood Industry boss and he wrote to the chief exec of the Scottish Seafood Association and he warned that the escalating fuel costs were having a devastating impact on our ability to remain viable. He stressed how impactful that was, particularly on our food security. That is really concerning. People across the board, individuals and households are struggling, but when we look at the impact now on our food security as well, it is really worrying. What has been done to help the fishing sector? You are absolutely right. That is, of course, a concern. Just to touch on the food security point for a moment as well, we obviously had the Food Security and Supply Task Force and the recommendations from that, which we are in the process of implementing and doing what we can in that regard, but also within that we recognised that, of course, not all the levers to be able to effect that, as I was highlighting earlier, are within Scottish Government control, particularly when it comes to fuel and energy. First of all, we make those representations continually to the UK Government to see what other interventions can be made there, but I do realise for some businesses that that is particularly acute at the moment in your right. It does threaten our overall food security and viability of some businesses if we are not able to offer them that support. We do also have a number of other forums in place. We have a seafood industry action group together with the UK Government, where we meet with industry to try and address some of the challenges that we face, because some of the challenges were pre-existing, the current situation that we are in, but they have only been exacerbated by everything that has happened since. We know that workforce still is a massive, massive issue. It is trying to ensure that, across the piece, we are taking action where we possibly can to help and assist with businesses. As the convener alluded to earlier, we are governed by two Governments. As you spoke, there is that reliance on them when it comes to particular policy and help and support and their duties in that regard. Is there any alignment there? Are you able to voice exactly what our fishing industry is needing here in the northeast, for example? Can they come in and align with that, or are you finding that difficult? Yes, absolutely, because we regularly raise those concerns, particularly when it is not in our group. We do not have the powers to deal with some of the most pressing issues. We have done that through that action group. We have an inter-ministerial group as well with the other devolved Administrations in the UK Government. I have a new counterpart as well where I have raised a number of those on-going issues. Particularly what is important is the recommendations that we have heard from the task force too. There are some that we are in the process of delivering that are within our responsibility. The establishment of a food security unit was one in relation to that. We are trying to corral some of our business support to make it easier for people to access. However, a number of actions were identified through the work of the task force that are the responsibility of the UK Government that I have written to them about and to try to impress where we can to get that meaningful action taken. Dicking with fisheries. From what I understand, the fleet of the enforcement arm of Marine Scotland, Marine Scotland Compliance, is composed of just three vessels. I am also aware from stakeholders their concerns that enforcement of marine regulations is underfunded and of the many instances of the legal fishing going on unchecked due to a lack of enforcement capacity. I am also aware that enforcement officers undertook industrial action earlier this year. Given that there is work being taken forward on inshore fisheries through the Butehouse agreement, can I ask if increasing enforcement capacity is a priority for the Scottish Government and if you expect there to be increased funding in the budget for this coming year? If not, how will enforcement be improved? There is a lot in there, so hopefully I am able to address all the points, but I am sure that you will come back if I do not. However, just in relation to the workforce and what you are talking about there, we have had the extra £10 million investment this year recognising the scale of what Marine Scotland has to deliver, whether that is in relation to the Scotland process and trying to ensure that we have the planning and consenting resources that we need in relation to that, but also in relation to our ambitious environmental agenda. Of course, I have to work within the parameters that I have. If I had an unlimited budget, then of course it would be great to invest more in more vessels for enforcement. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We do have a vast marine area to try and cover with what we do have. We have three of the MPVs. We also have two aircraft to help us with that enforcement. As I said, we have a vast area to cover, and we take a risk-based approach in relation to that. To reiterate and re-emphasise that, if anybody is witnessing any activity, they are deemed to be illegal or have concerns to ensure that they feed back to us so that we can again analyse that and see how we best allocate our resources. Is there any consideration to increase the size of vessels, given that we have such a vast amount of water to cover and that there are all these concerns being raised by stakeholders? I do recognise the concerns, but I have to work within the parameters that I have talked today about the significant challenges that we have in the portfolio, particularly in relation to our capital spend. That is what we would be looking at if we were talking about our enforcement. I cannot make a promise to the committee today that that is something that we would be looking to enhance at this particular moment in time because of the sheer levels of costs that would be involved in that and the significant pressures that there already are on the capital budget. If I understand things correctly, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund share for Scotland evidence-based and on-sea area would have been around £62 million per annum. I do not believe that we have received that, despite Scotland's other government promising to match European funds on withdrawal. Can you tell us how that has impacted on what the work Marine Scotland can do and the flexibility that your department has? Yes, that is right. We are significantly constrained. Obviously, we could do a lot more if we had the full allocation that we believe that we are entitled to, but instead we would receive £14 million, which the committee will be aware from the regulations that we passed earlier than the year just about what we can fund. We can fund a broader range of activities now, which is good, but we still have the same budget, so it significantly constrains our ability to do more with the resources that we have. I would like to turn to the national test programme. The £10 million that is committed so far this year has been spent on, and whether more detail is available on what the remaining £41 million—and I am pleased to say that that is guaranteed funding now—is anticipated to be spent on over the next two years? Yes. The £10 million that has been allocated for this year is for the first track of the national test programme that we have started to roll out. We had the claim window for the claims for carbon audits. It is not possible for me to say exactly right now exactly how much has been spent because it is largely demand-led schemes that we have. We will have the claim window opening soon, I believe, for soil testing as well. That is largely what the funding this year has been allocated for. That is in relation to the first track. The second track is where we talked about doing more of a focused pilot project with a number of farmers to test what conditionality would look like. The first part of that was about trying to engage members in a survey that should be undertaken over the summer as well. I think that that closed towards the end of August as the first part of the second track. It has really been about trying to get that role out and offer the incentives for people to engage in the variety of different measures and get that baseline understanding of where their businesses are at in relation to their climate performance at the moment. In relation to the rest of the £41 million on how that has been going to be allocated over the course of the next couple of years, carbon audits and soil testing are just one element. When it initially made the announcement and what has come through ARIOP as well, it is just the importance of animal health and looking at biodiversity audits as well. We have not been in a position to roll out biodiversity audits within the first part of the programme just because they are not at a stage in their development where they can be rolled out across the country, but that is an element that we are looking to add to the programme, as well as we have a working group in particular looking at measures that can be taken in relation to animal health. Those are key areas that will be added to the programme as we progress through the next couple of years. We also have the livestock performance feedback in relation to that as well, so it is expected that the programme will grow over the course of the next few years. That is my understanding. The £51 million is to get agriculture into the shape that it needs to be in order to continue food production, but at the same time meet the demands of climate change that the targets have been set for. Are you confident that the programme is going to deliver that for our agricultural production in the future? Bearing in mind that agriculture, as we have heard time and time again in this committee, should be about food production. Absolutely. I would come back to what we have set out in our vision for agriculture as well, where we focus on food production. It is about lowering emissions to their lowest possible level and doing what we can to enhance nature. I think that the three of those are intertwined and it is vitally important given all the challenges that we are looking at now. Food security has jumped right up the agenda. That is why we undertake the work with the task force and that is why we have committed to maintaining direct payments as well because we know that that food production is so vital. The £51 million is ultimately there to support the transition and to support people going along that journey. I know that there are so many farmers and crofters already who are undertaking the types of practices that we would want to see. We want to make sure that everybody comes along that journey. That is where the work of Ariobb has been really important in helping to shape the incentives that will hopefully work for industry and that we are developing that the claims are simple and straightforward for people to take part in and that we are offering the correct incentives. I think that that is where the development of that work has been really important. The conditionality is something that is absolutely going to stay so that farmers will be encouraged to grow food given the fact that you are talking about food production and food security being much higher on the agenda. We have set out those commitments in our manifestos and vision for agriculture as well. We have talked about introducing the 50 per cent conditionality by 2025, so that is still the commitment that is there. One last question. I have concerns about the reports that have been coming through the Guardian in the last week that the UK Government is now talking about changing the system in England that Elms might be discarded to go back to an area payment. If that is the case, will that affect any budget that comes to Scotland in relation to agriculture? I am not able to give an answer in relation to the direction that the UK Government is doing or where their policy is heading at the moment. I still have to meet with my UK Government counterpart to discuss many of the issues that we have talked about today in more detail. I think that we have had concerns about our future funding. I know that the committee has taken evidence previously in relation to the internal market act and the impacts that we can see from the subsidy control bill as well. We still have concerns in relation to that, but I cannot give a categoric answer at this moment in time. Sorry about the direction that is coming in. Just to add very briefly and maybe to link it back to the previous question, an important part of the national test programme is the test element. That is our opportunity to test out, with farmers and landowners, what are the measures that will help them to progress towards lower emissions, a better contribution to biodiversity, rather than go in with both feet and establish a new scheme and then discover that there are issues with take-up and barriers that have not been identified in the design. We will all be aware that there have been some concerns that the scheme south of the border that the take-up was potentially heading to below. I think that that is the benefit of the test approach that we are taking, that we can actually try out some of those measures, work out what works well, where we need to tweak things, how we can improve things before we proceed to full-scale implementation. I would also say that that is where the consultation that we have on that, the agriculture bill is really important in relation to that as well, and ensuring that we have that future flexibility, because we know that there will be a lot of learning as we go. We need that flexibility and that ability to adapt, not just for all the learning, the changes in technology and innovation that there could be within that time, but of course recognising all the various crises that we have faced and no doubt there will be more going forward and more challenges. It is ensuring that we have the flexibility to deal with that and adapt. Can it just ask, does the ARIOB still sit after the consultation has finished? Yes, it is more of an iterative process, so we are going to need the ARIOB in that co-development process as we continue to go forward. Looking at future agriculture budgets, the process in coming to agriculture bills has failed to the point that we have the NFUS and farmers going to be protesting outside the Parliament in the first week in November. The president of the NFU is suggesting that the Scottish Government is consulting on the future agriculture policy in a information void, and that it is hugely frustrated that despite several requests it is still unclear on the clarity of how the bill will look forward to deliver and a new bill that will put food production at the heart of the policy. I would come back to what I said previously in response to the questions from Jim Fairlie in relation to food policy, because food production is a key priority. That is why we identified it as one of the key pillars of support going forward, why we committed to maintaining direct payments. I know that there is that call for more clarity, and we are developing that and working with industry, because ultimately we want to deliver a policy that is going to work for people. In relation to the bill as well, it is really important that we are consulting on it right now. It is vital that we get the feedback before we develop that further, because we want to make sure that the proposals that we have set out in relation to future framework, what we are proposing in relation to modernising agricultural tendencies and a number of measures that we are taking the correct enabling powers that we need to try to address some of the challenges that we have and looking to have some powers there that are not open to us at the moment in relation to action that we can take. Of course that is where I would urge everybody to take part in that consultation as many people as possible, because it is vital that we get that feedback and we bring forward a bill to Parliament that is going to work and deliver on everything that we need it to. Do you accept that there is an information vacuum in the industry that you are talking about consulting with? We have had the area open, we have had focus groups, whatever they are coming out and saying that there is this vacuum and yet they are asked to participate in a consultation and it is not the right way to do it. Do you accept that there is an information vacuum on direction of travel? I think that in relation to the consultation that is an enabling bill that brings forward those powers, we have to consult on that because we need to get that feedback in the development. Again, that is where the work with ARIOB has been really important. I talked about some of the initiatives that we have been taking forward as part of the national test programme in shaping and delivering schemes and systems that we know will work based on that and trying to deliver either the incentives and the mechanisms to make it as simple and easy as possible for farmers to take part and get on board. Again, we have tried to provide as much clarity as we possibly can at this period in time. We have committed to maintaining direct payments, we have talked about the conditionality and more detail will come on that in due course. Of course, I engage with the industry regularly. I take that feedback, but again, if we come back to it, it is really important that we get that feedback on the bill before we bring it forward. Moving on to the Good Food Nation Food Commission. The Government has estimated that it will be about £1 million to run per year. We would be interested in hearing what are the timescales for establishing it and any detail that you have on it coming into existence. I will be happy to keep the committee informed on that as plans develop for the commission. I am not able to provide too much more information on that today because we obviously have timescales that we committed to in relation to the bill as to when a Good Food Nation plan would be brought forward given the nature of the Food Commission and as that has been set out in the legislation that has been passed as well, that would in the development of the plan will obviously be working to establish the commission along a similar timescale. In relation to the budget that we have projected for that, that is based largely on similar sized bodies that we have within the Government. We believe those figures to be representative of what the Food Commission, the size and what it will be expected to deliver. I am not able to give much more detail on that today, but I will be happy to keep the committee engaged as that develops further. How is the process for that going, the Government's Good Food Plan? It has only been a few months since the act has been passed, so we are still in the early stages of developing that. We will, of course, be looking to produce the draft plan in relation to the timescales that we have set out in the legislation. Most of my questions have been answered in relation to the Food Commission. I could try to be a bit sneaky and try to pull out more information of what it is going to look like, but I know that that is in the works at the moment. Would it be showing any type of monitoring or reporting on the state of food poverty? I think that those are things that we will probably look to develop. I know that when we were having initial discussions throughout the committee scrutiny of the Good Food Nation Bill and now act, whether it was in relation to food poverty or health, there are a lot of outcomes that we can look to address in some of the plans as well. I think that it will be within the plans itself as to how we are going to monitor our delivery against some of the outcomes that we set out. I know that the committee will know that, given the range of evidence that you heard and what you took, just how many areas food policy touches. I think that that is what is important about the Good Food Nation plans. It is about bringing all that together in a coherent way and ensuring that we deliver on that. How we monitor that is going to be really important, but there will be more detail in that within the plans themselves. It is exciting. Just on the topic of food, there is the idea of having a food task force. Where does that appear in the budget and what is the likely cost of creating the food task force? Do you mean in relation to the recommendations about the food unit and the food security and supply task force and the food security unit? George Burgess can give a bit more information on that. Obviously, the food task force has already existed and it produced its report earlier in the summer. There are further meetings of that to be happening. The next one should be happening shortly. In terms of the food security unit—and it helps to pick up a point from Ms Adam earlier—you wrote to the cabinet secretary just last week some of the questions that we didn't have time to get to at the last time that we appeared before the committee. The cabinet secretary wrote yesterday and in that the letter includes a detailed response to provide an update on the recommendations from the task force. In terms of where the budget for that work will sit, that will sit within the Food and Drink division, within agriculture and rural economy. We already have a number of officials there who have been working on those issues for a long time. We have had the Food Sector Resilience Group and other engagements with stakeholders. We have been working on issues such as CO2 shortage for some time. The unit will be built out from that existing group of staff and the budget will be within Food and Drink. Obviously, it will be working across Government in the same way as food generally. It is a very cross-cutting issue. I will jump back to the islands plan. Will there be a focus in the budget document on how spending plans across all portfolios—you touched on that earlier—and how the budget will help to deliver the islands plan? In the long-term island plan, are you ruling out longer-term funding allocations? Are you saying that that is not possible in the future? No, I am not ruling out future allocations. I would just come back to that the CSR and the RSR are the broad funding envelopes. They are not budgets in and of themselves, so more detail will be coming forward in relation to that. The islands plan essentially brings together all the other pieces of work that are happening across Government. Obviously, islands are not a policy area of its own. There are so many areas of interest across Government that impact people on our islands, whether that is housing. From the session that I had with the committee, I cannot remember if that was back in June on the national islands plan. I hope that that comes across. That is why we have an islands team. That is why my role in Government exists, is to ensure that we are taking into consideration our islands, any potential impact on islands and our rural communities across all policy areas of Government. Finally, looking back at the evidence session again, some of the local authorities suggested that housing and transport were absolutely the main drivers around rural depopulation. Is it possible that the island plan and associated funding is just at the moment too broad? Perhaps, particularly given the cost of living crisis at the moment, would it not be better to focus more specifically on a smaller number of objectives? I think that all of the objectives that we have identified, of course, we need to ensure that they are all still relevant, but I think that a lot of them are. We have a population in that. You touched on housing and on transport. We have fuel poverty as an objective within that. I think that all of those things are vitally important. I attended the convention of the Highlands and Islands earlier, just at the start of this week, in Oben, where we were talking about a lot of those issues. Again, when I am out on visits and from that meeting as well, housing is identified as probably one of, if not the only, but it is one of the key issues that people are facing at the moment. I visited Orkney in the summer where I was hearing exactly the same thing, because we do not necessarily see a jobs shortage in rural and island areas, but it is the housing, the lack of affordable housing for people to stay in our communities. That is where the objectives that we have are still relevant. It is also not up to the islands programme in and of itself to fund those interventions, because that is where the work that is being taken forward in housing is critically important. We are developing the Remote Rural and Islands Housing Action Plan, which is in development at the moment. I would be happy to follow that up with colleagues if the committee are looking for more information on that, because we know that there are particular challenges in our rural and island areas that we need to try and address. I think that the objectives that we have are relevant, but it is about the other interventions that we are making across government that are really important here, rather than just islands programme in particular. I was going to ask the cabinet secretary about how involved she is in the remote rural and island housing action plan. Do you collaborate with the cabinet secretary on social justice housing and local government? Yes, and I have had meetings with the cabinet secretary to discuss some of the issues, as well as a lot of stakeholders that I will engage with, whether they are community groups or housing organisations, just by the nature of my role. Again, of course, there are so many other things that are relevant to almost all policy areas, so that engagement that I have with my ministerial colleagues is really important. There is also the ministerial task force on population, which is, again, about that cross-cutting piece that I lead on the rural and islands. It is a strand of that work that is being led by the cabinet secretary for the constitution, so we are really trying to ensure that we are delivering on those objectives and that we are engaging, because that is absolutely critical. We are going to deliver and make those changes that we need to see for island communities. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That was really helpful to hear about the work that goes on with the island boards and what have you. I think that we have had a lot of evidence today and in the previous weeks about the importance of feedback and listening to your communities, but also feeding back to the communities as to how things are going to change. I am going to take the convener's lead and jump around a wee bit. I just want to confirm that the NFUS co-convenes ARIOB, so therefore there is a relationship there within the NFUS and the actual organisation. I am also interested to know if there is perhaps a vacuum of information and collaboration, if that is the right word to use, coming from Scotland's other unelected government. You are right in relation to the role that NFUS has in the co-convening role there, but again, ARIOB is there to ensure that we want to work with industry, we want to work with our farmers and crofters as we develop future policy. That is what is critical to me, because I want to make sure that we get it right. We are delivering a policy that we are able to implement and will deliver everything that we hope it will in relation to emissions reductions and in relation to ensuring that we have food security and enhancing nature, too. That does not necessarily mean that everybody is an individual within that group. They are going to have different perspectives and different views. There are some things that we will have to do as a government that not necessarily everybody will be in agreement with, whether that is because of the legislative constraints that we exist in, or whether that is budgetary constraints, too. It is that co-development piece that is really important in ensuring that they are feeding into that process. Very briefly, on the relationship with NFUS, to pick up the convener's comment earlier, I understand that the event that is being set up outside the Parliament early next month is intended by the NFUS very much as a celebration of the importance of farming and food production for Scotland, something that I think that we can all get behind. I think that it is important that the Scottish Government clearly support after what we have heard in terms of the budget cuts to farming, but it is really important that there will be a rally outside the Parliament. I will quote them because they have said that it remains hugely frustrating that, despite several requests from the NFUS Scotland and other stakeholders, we have yet to receive clarity on how any new powers created in the proposed new agricultural bill will put food production at the heart of delivering all the economic, social and environmental benefits that active agricultural businesses will be asked to deliver. That is absolutely damning. It has come to the state where the NFUS have to bring together people because there has been such a lack of clarity. What would you say to that? First of all, to address your first point, this is not a budget cut to farming. As I said earlier, it does not impact on any current schemes that we have and it does not impact on what we are delivering in the national test programme, and it is ring-fence funding that must come back to the portfolio, so I just want to be clear on that point. We are restricted in terms of the changes that we can make or what we can deliver in this interim time because of the act that was passed in 2020 and because of the previous commitment that we have had that we would be delivering stability and simplicity throughout this time, which has been a really important piece of work to ensure that there has been at least as much stability as we can provide through when we look at all the different crises and upheaval that there has been over the course of the past few years. Being able to provide that is really important. I absolutely understand and take the point about people who want to know their planning for the future. They want to know what future policy is going to mean for their business and they want to see the detail of that. The consultation that we have brought forward was not going to deliver that detail again because it is about the enabling powers that we need for future legislation but also set out within that as the broad framework of what we are looking at to. We also have the commitments that we have made that we will continue to support food production through direct payments. It is the conditionally bit of that but the co-development that I talked about before is what is really vital and critical here because we want to make sure that we get this right. That is where that work is really important. We want to deliver something that we know will deliver on all our targets and that is ultimately workable as well. I am absolutely committed to that work and of course we want to provide as much detail to people as we can and more detail will be emerging in due course. Thank you cabinet secretary and your officials for joining us this morning. That concludes our question session so thank you very much for the information that you provided this morning. We will now move straight on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the non-commercial movement of pet animals Scotland amendment 2, regulations 2022, SSI 2022-262 and I refer members to paper 3 from page 17 in the paper pack. Do any members have any comments on this instrument? No. I propose that we write to the Scottish Government asking for further information to set out on page 19. I will all agree. That concludes our business in public. We will now move into private session.