 Welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Rural Affairs Islands and Natural Environment Committee in 2022. I want to remind all its members to turn them to silent before we begin. The first item of business is to decide whether to take item 4 at today's meeting and private, in consideration of correspondence relating to the 23-24 Scottish Government budget to future meetings in private. Are we all agreed? Our second is an evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands, and members will recall that the committee agreed to hold a bi-annual evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary to discuss key aspects of the Rural Affairs and Islands remit. I welcome to the meeting, Mari Gouja, on the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands and Her officials. This morning, we've got George Burgers, director of agriculture and rural economy. Remotely, we have Jill Barber, head of agriculture development, and Alan Gibb, deputy director of sea fisheries from the Scottish Government. We've got about 90 minutes for questions this morning. I was going to kick off just by asking, can you outline some of the major announcements that were made in yesterday's programme for government and how that might affect the remit to this committee? Yes, I'd be happy to, but of course I would also want to make the point that, of course, there are a lot of pieces of work that are currently under way, not all of which will be highlighted within the PFG document that was published yesterday, given the nature of the PFG, which is also quite different to other year's PFGs as well, and the important focus that it has on the cost of living crisis. So there are a key number of pieces of work that are currently under way, so we launched our consultation on a future agriculture bill, which we'll be looking to bring forward next year. We're, of course, continuing to roll out the national test programme, which is trying to encourage our farmers to look at the measures they can take to reduce their emissions and start the way on that journey. So that's looking at carbon audits, it's also looking at soil testing too. We're also developing the second phase of that work, so that's all critical in terms of our farming and the direction of future travel that we're looking towards there. In the marine environment, and I think if I look at aquaculture for a moment as well, we had the Griggs review earlier in the year, so we're taking forward the recommendations in relation to that. No doubt the committee will have questions on that later in the session too, but I can go into that in a bit more detail. And in our marine environment, there are commitments within the PFG to look at a new national marine plan within there too. We've also talked about going back to the agricultural rural economy in relation to crofting as well and taking forward work there. So there are a lot of pieces of work underway, which no doubt will cover more in the session today. Thanks very much. We've got various sections, obviously, we're going to go through, and we'll try and keep to a format. So I'm going to ask Rachel Hamilton to ask the first questions on agriculture. Morning, Cabinet Secretary. As you know, many organisations have been very critical about the timescale around the future farm policy introduction, and there have been many consultations over the last six years. You have the Areob group set up, but why has it taken you so long to get to this point? What has been going on behind the scenes, and do you believe that the Areob is effective? I do believe that it is very effective because the Areob is critical because we want to ensure that we are co-developing our policies for the future. I think that it's really vital that we do that with the industries that are most affected by the policies that we're going to implement, because we need to make sure that the policies that we bring forward are going to work for our farming and agriculture industries. That's where I would say that just an example of the impact of the Areob work and how that's informed our work is through the national test programme. I talked about the different tracks within that that we've been looking at. We launched track 1 earlier this year in preparing for sustainable farming, where we're looking at the roll-out of carbon audits and encouraging farmers to undertake carbon audits, and the next phase of that will be encouraging farmers to look at doing soil testing as well. The Areob was really critical in how that developed, ensuring that even the claims that we'd be able to make for carbon audits was a way that was simple, accessible and easy for the industry to use and to undertake, and really helping us to focus on the key areas that are going to make a big difference. That's where their work has been critical, and it will continue to be. The Areob is, of course, an advisory group to the Scottish Government, so it's being able to get all those interests around and hear those ideas, which has been really important for us, and I think why we've been able to do the work that we've done so far as well. Can you shed any light on why you believe that Martin Kennedy of the NFUS has been so critical about the time that it's taken? Why did it take so long to get to this stage? Was it a resource issue? What was the reason? Can you tell the committee? I completely understand the comments that have been made by Martin, and I think that all of the industry wants things to get moving. We obviously had the farmer-led groups that reported towards the end of last year. We had to then set up the Areob and see how we could take that work forward, which is exactly what we've been doing throughout that time as well. I think that it's also important to remember that, as well as looking to develop future policy, roll out the national test programme, which we developed within that time as well, we also have to make sure that we can run the current payment system, that we can do all of that at the same time as well as doing all those other things, so, of course, that does add pressure. I think that we want to ensure that we go as far and as fast as we can, because we have incredibly stretching targets that we need to meet. We need to reduce our emissions by 31 per cent on 2019 levels by 2032, so that means that we need to take this action. That's where the work that we've undertaken through Areob to roll out the national test programme to try to incentivise the industry to get on board with us now has been really important. We have seen strong uptake in relation to carbon audits, for example, which is a really encouraging sign, but we know that we need everybody to undertake those measures. So, there is a huge amount of pressure there. Everybody wants us to go further faster, and that's exactly, of course, what we will try to do. Okay. On your comments with regard to being stretched, do you think that you will resource the department further if you are having to have so many pressures, as well, if you've described there about getting the farm payments out as well? I mean, do you think that it would be wise to ensure that the department was well resourced so that we don't have any more delays? My second point, just to finish my questioning, is that there's been a lot of comment around the national test programme. In terms of the farmers that are already doing the good things, I didn't see much in the consultation surrounding the areas where farmers already have done interventions respectively. It's difficult for those farmers to understand how the future farm policy is going to support them, if you understand what I mean. I absolutely do. To comment on that point, because I think that when I've been visiting farmers, for example, we have, through the farming for a better climate, we have the soil regenerative group, and that's certainly the points that I've been hearing, because I do meet so many people that are already well on their way and who are actually doing everything that we would hope people to be doing to try to reduce their emissions to the lowest possible level while producing food and while also doing what they can to enhance nature and biodiversity on their farms. I think that that is a key point that has come through our area of discussions, because I think that it can be seen that you are only rewarding the people who are just at the start of that journey and who have a lot of work to go, but that's what it is important for us going forward, that we do reward the people that have been doing this work and are continuing to do that work already. I think that that's where the proposals that we brought through for the consultation would actually show that to you, but that's certainly what we're intending. I'm sorry to come back on your first point as well. I mean, I don't think that the pressures that we're under in relation to the directorates that I'm responsible for are different across government, because of course we all have limited resource and we are all under increasing budgetary pressure, so of course we are trying to maximise and do whatever we can. I only make the points earlier to show that there is a lot of work already underway in the department, there continues to be, because we have to roll out the current payment system, we need to roll out the national test programme as well as look to develop future policy too. We are doing that and we are doing that as quickly as we possibly can. I'm just interested to hear what you were talking about, the way that you've been working with the farmers through ARIOB and the way forward, working with them, finding out their views on the areas. I'm just wondering if you can perhaps contrast that to the situation that is happening south of the border. We set out right from the start that the co-development of our future policy was going to be really important for some of the reasons that I outlined to Rachel Hamilton there, because we need to make sure that the policies that we're bringing forward are going to work, and that's where the consultation that we've launched is really important to you. We want to know the unintended consequences of some of the actions that we're proposing, if there are any issues that maybe we haven't identified that we need to be aware of, and we want to make sure that that's workable. Of course, ARIOB helped to feed in to that process as well, and that has been really important. We want to work with the industry, we want to work with all the different interests and try to take people on this journey with us. There's no point in us hiding away, developing a policy that, fundamentally, we can't implement or it isn't going to work. We also need to make sure that it delivers on the vision for agriculture that we set out earlier in the year, where we talked about we want Scotland to be a global leader when it comes to sustainable and regenerative agriculture, we want to have a thriving rural economy, we want our farming businesses to be resilient, because we've seen a series of shocks over the past few years and we know there will probably be loads more challenges to come down the line as well. It's about making sure that we have a future payment framework that's going to be flexible and adaptable to some of those challenges in the future. The work of ARIOB has been important in helping us to develop the proposals that we've seen within that and helping us to develop the national test programme in a way that will work. It's also going to continue to be important as we look to develop the detail that will bring forward an agriculture bill, so it's going to continue to be important in feeding into that process as we move forward. Thank you, cabinet secretary. Like Ms Hamilton, I've been meeting and speaking to lots of farmers and crofters over the summer, and the clearly west coast farmers and crofters. I'm just wondering how you can ensure that the different types of farming and crofting across Scotland is supported by this process. Absolutely. I think that that's really important. First of all, I think that I would want to make the point that we would encourage everybody to take part in this consultation and to look at it because we need to make sure that we're hearing those voices and that everybody is taking part. I would also highlight to the committee and I'll be happy to send more details of this when we have all the sessions confirmed, but we will be holding engagement events on the consultation where people can attend and ask us questions if there is anything that they want to go over. Again, I'll send that information to the committee once we have all the venues and details of those confirmed over the course of the next wee while because I do think that is really important. Of course, that is going to affect our food production, how we produce food, it's going to affect how we're able to enable farmers, tenant farmers and crofters to undertake the actions to reduce their emissions and to enhance biodiversity. I would say that it's also important not just for our rural economy but for people right across Scotland because food, of course, is such a fundamental building block that I think this is a really important consultation. I can't stress that enough and that's why it's really important that everyone takes part. Thank you. Harry Ann Burgess. Good morning Cabinet Secretary. This is a bit of a question around funding. The committee is well aware that we spend over half a billion pounds on agriculture support payments each year and that we need that money to be working for climate and for nature and for food production. The PFG sets out a commitment to shift 50% of direct payments to climate action and funding for on-farm nature restoration enhancement but I trust that in time this percentage will increase. I'm delighted that the PFG commits to exploring capping and or tapering base-level payments to release additional funding to meet the goals or agricultural vision. Can I ask the cabinet secretary if she has specific policy measures or objectives in mind that would benefit from that additional funding? I think it is just important that, as we've said in the PFG, that we look to explore what opportunities could be there. Is there then, could that potentially free up resource that could help us to further roll out measures that we're looking at already again about giving that support to our farmers, crofters and land managers to lower their emissions and enhance biodiversity. So we'll just be at the start of that process now because I do think it's one of those important issues that we do have to consider. So we taper off when we put that money aside for potential things as part of the thinking that some of it's going to be emergent as we start to understand what farmers are going to need to make that shift to more sustainable farming, more regenerative farming that's responding to climate and nature. That's one thing that I would say that I think in relation to emissions reduction and restoring and enhancing biodiversity as well. We already know a lot of the measures that work and I think we've been able to show that and we have a number of different networks that I think it's important for me to highlight. So our integrating trees network, for example, I also talked about the farming for a better climate, the work that we've been doing there in relation to soils. We have the agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network as well. We're asking farmers and the more farmers we have joined that network, the better to really showcase the different types of work, the impact that it's been having because I think that's the thing that when I go round and speak to farmers it's incredible to see that the efficiencies that they've been able to make, the impact that's had on the emissions reductions and what they've been doing for biodiversity. We know that it's all be better and I think farmers will learn from each other more than from anything else if they can see what's happening on similar farms. So I think it's really important that the farmers look to those networks and take part in that as well but again I think that we are just at the start of exploring what that could do because I think that if there is the potential there that we need that extra investment and either capping or tapering could help towards that, I think it's important that we at least look at that as an option. Do you have a sense now of a kind of uptank that's happening? Do you mean in relation to our, I mean I can give one example of our carbon audits for example I think that, I don't know if George will have the exact figures but I'll give you a minute to think about it. We have seen a great uptake in our carbon audits in the first quarter of this year compared to the whole of last year so I think that's a really positive and encouraging sign. We'll be opening the window for the soil testing component later this year as well and again the committee will probably aware themselves from the visits they undertake, you know there are a lot of people who are already undertaking a lot of the measures that we would want to see but I think seeing that uptake in the carbon audits has been a really encouraging and positive sign but I think that that's also, it's important when we look to next steps because I think that was one thing that is highlighted to me too and if I had various people say it we can encourage people to undertake an audit but then what do you do on the back of that and what do you do with that information and I think that's where we're looking at future policy. It's that CPD, that extra element with the skills and the development of that that we can really hope to develop that and help people to be able to take the next steps that they need to. Just very briefly, I think that the cabinet secretary has outlined the overall sense of the uptake of the audits work. Another part of the national test programme is a survey that's been going on with about a thousand farmers and that's to help understand some of the motivations there where there are barriers between you doing the audit and then actually making changes on farm. The other point just to add in is sometimes there can be a dichotomy between food production on the one hand and biodiversity and climate change on the other. I think a lot of the measures that we're looking at are things that are good on all those fronts, things that can reduce emissions and improve efficiency and improve the bottom line for farmers. So I think anything that all of us can do to avoid that, as I say, forced dichotomy between food production and the environmental aspects. Yeah, I would agree. I think absolutely the move towards regenerative agriculture brings all of that together and it's great to hear that there's work being done there. The survey that you mentioned, what's the time frame for that? Well, I'm happy to come in on that one. We ran the survey over the summer and it closed at the end of August and as George was saying, we did have a really strong uptake to that as well. I think we'll wait around a thousand people take part, which I think really surpassed our expectations in terms of the uptake that we'd planned to see, so that was really positive. That's then going to help inform the next stage of that phase as we look to really test the actions that we're going to take forward on what that conditionality might look like, the tools that we're going to need, how we standardise those tools and make those improvements as well as we look to do a more intensive pilot of that work and the survey has really helped to inform that. Thank you. Alasdair Allan. Thank you. Just briefly, you've described some of the engagement that there's been with the agriculture industry. I was wondering if you could say anything specifically about engagement with the crofting community given the part of your ask is around reform and legislative terms as well as these issues. What's the engagement being with the crofting sector? I would say that we have a member of the crofting federation on the area board as well. We are going to be undertaking specific events in relation to the agriculture bill, but of course what we'll also have coming further down the line is the crofting legislation but I also realise that there are a lot of pieces coming together and a lot of pieces of legislation which are interlinked and I think it's that engagement that is going to be really important going forward. But of course we will be, I talked about some of the sessions that we'll be holding in the consultation events so of course we'll be trying to use these networks wherever we can to spread the word as much as possible and hopefully get that strong engagement that we need. Cabinet Secretary, we've heard about the dichotomy between food production and the biodiversity and climate change actions, do you have any idea what percentage of the current productive agricultural land in Scotland we need to retain and farm intensively to provide the food that we need for food security and what's your view on sustainable and intensive farming and what role does that have in future agricultural policy? Well I think that's where coming on the back of what George was saying there about that perceived dichotomy, I don't want that to exist because I don't think it's a case of either or because we see people that are doing all of these things and you know our farmers and crofters are the stewards of the land and you know many of them are already undertaking those practices that we want to see as well and that's where I would again highlight some of those networks that I talked about earlier, I think forestry for example we've seen where people can integrate trees where we can better stitch trees into the landscape without harming productivity without harming efficiency so I think it's really important that we're able to highlight these examples to people to to show what's out there to show how that can be done so again I don't want to go down the track of saying it's an either or because we know we can do that and again the soil regenerative group it's looking at all the different improvements that can be made that can have a big impact as well as again our agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network too. So are you suggesting that there will not be a situation where in some areas in our most productive land we need to concentrate on food production because the dichotomy there won't result in the the levels of food production that we need are you suggesting that we should be looking at regenerative farming right across all our productive agriculture land or should we be able to say we need 65% of current agricultural land to be farmed as intensively as possible and maybe 20% to be farmed where regenerative and biodiversity and the climate change at its heart and maybe some rewilding because we're very much aware of their spatial pressures we've got peatland which we'd have supported some sort of agriculture production that agriculture production has been taken out we've got increased tree planting we've got increased rewilding so surely we need to increase agricultural production on the land that's left so how are you going to balance that well i don't i think what we're really trying to encourage to do is obviously every farm business is different and we we know that we need to encourage well one thing that we're putting forward in the consultation is about the when we're looking at the future framework and what that might look like is looking at a whole farm plan so all the different actions that are taking place within that and as i say we've got so many examples already of people undertaking the the practices that we would hope to see and we would hope to develop going forward and i do think we know there's a lot of capacity for better integrated land use we know that that's there and in some places it's not happening so we've got so much scope for that that there as well so again i don't want to encourage these debates or going down that track whether it's it's either or because i think we've got to encourage businesses as a whole to look at that and to consider all the actions that can be taken but of course that within that future framework too we've also got the levels of support that look at that other the elective payments that complimentary support because there is work that can be done on a landscape scale we see that developing already it's about how if we're looking at managing specific habitats for example that may not be just on one farm area it's how we can encourage that to tackle some of these problems on a landscape scale so i think all of that is going to be really important and again the feedback that we have on the proposals within the framework are really important okay and a very straightforward question how much of the 51 million pounds funding for the national test programme has been spent in the first year you might think that's a very straightforward question but unfortunately it's not at this moment in time because it's a demand-led scheme so as I say we've had the first round and the first claims window open for for carbon audits we're a way to have the second window open for soil testing in the autumn as well so it's not possible for me to to give an exact figure on the amount that's been spent this year obviously we have the 51 million pounds as you mentioned over the course of the three years for the programme we had 10 million pounds of that allocated this year but i'd be happy to keep the committee updated as we go forward or i believe we do have future sessions in place to talk about a budget but i may be able to give a more considerate response or i don't know if george wants to come in here just expand that is part of as mentioned earlier making the system easy for farmers so rather than saying you have to contact arpid and get a prior approval for stuff which would give us all the data that would be allow us to answer the question we've said to farmers go ahead get the work done then claim back afterwards so that's why we're in this position that we cannot say definitively this is the number of audits that's been done this is the amount of money that's been spent but you know we're working with the industry to understand the level of uptake that's happening out there yeah by the moment it's 10 million is that right that's what's been budgeted for this year yes okay rachel a supplementary very quickly can i just make a comment about that mr budge is because that is one of the criticisms of some of these schemes is that farmers can't afford to outlay the money in terms of the capital outlay and i think it's important that we recognise that some people if you're trying to encourage them to get involved in these schemes are not doing it because of a cash flow issue that's a very common as i say the approach that we've taken responding to views from the from the agriculture sector i don't think the well while at the moment the cost pressures that we heard off from the the nfs board yesterday are significant across all sectors i don't think the cost of your carbon audits or soil testing is is quite in the in the sort of the territory that it would be a huge disincentive to know that the work has can be done and then claim back afterwards but you know except the point that you're making thanks very much come here um i just let me make the point we hear this comment are these phrases used all the time in this committee moving towards regenerative farming we're not in my understanding we're not moving towards regenerative farming we're farming that's what farmers have always done and i'm fine that particularly frustrating that the farming community are being demonised in terms of the carbon captures that we have to do the farming community accepts that there is work to be done but it's not a whole scale chuck in the baby out of the bathwater and i just want to put that point on record um as far as the the budget question that the convener just asked there's a couple of points i'd like to make um the key differences between the system that the scottish government are putting in place through the use of the arealb now i'm right in thinking that the point of the arealb was to actually consult with the industry in its entirety whereas down south it was done um and what will be the key differences between what we're looking at and what's going to what's being done in the past no problem i'd just to say i completely agree with you on your first point and i certainly hope that's not what we're doing i think that the industry has felt demonised which i don't think is is fair at all um and would completely agree with you in relation to that in terms of the proposals that we've brought forward and some of the changes that we're looking to make i think one of the key things there is about well we have committed to maintaining direct payments but moving to that 50 conditionalities so that's set out in the enhanced part of the the framework that we've put forward in the consultation as well i think another key part of the the consultation is about and the new framework is the i think the flexible nature of it and the adaptability because i think we've got to recognise not just the challenges that are coming down the line but also there's going to be a lot of innovation happening there could be technologies that come forward that we're not aware of and that we don't use now we need to make sure that we can build in the flexibility to within that framework to deal with either it could be technological advances whether that's advances in science and research and all these sorts of things so we need to make sure we've got a framework that's adaptable into the future and is less rigid than what we've had before and less limiting in the way that we are now and to do the consultation we're looking to also give ourselves the enabling powers to tackle some of these issues and to to build in conditionality in a way that we can't do at the moment about one of the examples of that is if you look at the provisions we're the proposals we've put forward in relation to animal health and welfare so we have the ability right now to compensate if there is a disease outbreak and we have specific powers around that what we don't have is powers around you know standardising what minimum requirements should be or could be for for animal health we also don't have powers to enable us to fund certain elements of that as well so i think that's where these powers are really important i think another really important element of the bill as well which has probably attracted less attention from from what i've seen so far because you know quite rightly there's a lot of concern there about what a future framework and payment framework is going to look like is also about the modernisation to tendencies that we're looking at at the moment i think that's one thing that i've heard from visiting um different farms too is just the the inability for some farmers to be able to diversify or to look what they can do whether that's in relation to tree planting or other measures they can look at to enhance biodiversity so we really want to make that easier for everybody to play their part in in some of the actions that can be taken i am also when we look at the wego provisions rent reviews there's a whole host of proposals that are in there to modernise agricultural tendencies which i think are really important can i ask you if you're looking at the longer term future my understanding is 97 percent of the agricultural budget comes from the UK spending review how are you planning to go forward in terms of the long term funding of agriculture if the system down south is completely different to the one we have here well that has been a concern that we've had i think particularly when we've discussed and i know we've discussed at the committee before through the internal market act in the subsidy control bill i think that's where we have been concerned about some of the principles within the subsidy control act the impact that that could have on our ability to to fund or put in place programmes in agriculture that we would look to fund here as well those are the concerns that we have we already know that we've got a shortfall of around 93 million pounds in our budget up to up to 2025 because we haven't had the full replacement of EU funds so of course that that is a concern going forward but of course we are working with the budget that we've got and trying to do and achieve everything we want to achieve within those limitations so your aim is to continue to support farming in scotland in the longer term but you can't actually give any guarantees until you've got a guarantee from funding from down south oh absolutely that would be my commitment because i think we're talking about our food security here or the future of our food production so we have got to ensure that we enable that to happen and that we're still seeing that happen in scotland and it also underpins the whole of our our rural economy here so we've got to make sure that continues but of course we don't have that that clarity and funding going forward one very final question convener in terms of making sure that there is the the commitment to making sure that the infrastructure and farming stays in place how are you going to be able to give that determination i don't understand if we've only got until 2027 when the funding will change down south how is the Scottish Government going to be able to give the commitment for a long term food security because food resilience having a food resilience system in scotland is vitally important how important is food resilience to you let me put it that way oh it's vitally important i mean it's absolutely critical i don't think there's any question about that but of course we're operating in a completely different environment than what we were in relation to the cap where you had that seven year multi annual budget so you knew what was coming you could plan for that period in advance but of course we operate in a very different environment now where we don't have that clarity for that period of time which of course does make things more difficult but of course that is a priority for me it's a priority for this government to ensure that we have that resilient food system and that we have and that we're looking at our food security going forward okay thank you thank you we're now going to move on to two questions on fisheries um and and specifically look at the first question on the future catching policy um we know that the the EU's principle is to to end discarding of fish but we know that in practice that's not particularly straightforward but can i ask you what the scottish government's future catching policy is and how is it looking to design a system that works for fisheries here and also can you give us an update on the the consultation that you carried out on future catching policy and what the results of that consultation wonder what the next steps will be all right no problem i'll try and answer that as best as i can i think the overall objectives of the cfp and what they're looking to achieve with the landing obligation is absolutely what we support and we're trying to follow those same objectives and what we say out in the future catching policy consultation was really looking at because we know that the system doesn't work as it is at the moment it's very complex it's hard for people to adhere to we were really looking to simplify that system but also try and prevent that unwanted catch in the first place so it set out while we developed the proposals with the fmac looking at how we can prevent that unwanted catch in the first place through technical and spatial measures but then also how do we simplify that system how do we make it more transparent and ultimately more accountable and effective in delivering on the objectives of the the landing obligation and cfp so that's ultimately what we've set out the consultation was an important step in that because of course we want to know what people think about the policy the consultation closed on the 7th of june and we're currently analysing the responses to that so i'm not able to give a response to the committee in relation to the outcomes of that yet but i'd be happy to come back with further information once we've done that analysis i don't know if there's anything i'll want to add to that point or no can you tell me what the first the next steps will be and you know what are if you diverge from the you landing obligations principles what are they what's that likely to look like well that's the thing and i think we said that in the consultation as well we agree with the overall objectives and i would say it's almost similar to what we are looking at in relation to replacing cap because there are 10 objectives of the new cap so while we might deviate in the technicalities of what our framework will look like ultimately we're looking to achieve the same aim and that would be the same in relation to what we're looking at in the future and catching policy because i think we do have that opportunity to look at how we can put in place a better operation in Scotland and again that does all those things we want it to do we want to stop that and want to catch in the first place where we can we want to make sure we have a simple and effective system that delivers on those same objectives that we know that the EU wants to achieve so it's not possible for me to exactly set that out because again i haven't been through the analysis of the consultation there could well be changes on the back of that or there may be some things we need to look at in more detail so again i'd be happy to keep the committee updated on the next steps okay Beatrice Wishart. Just on that point i wonder where gilnet fishing features in the for the future i mean you might be aware cabinet secretary that Shetland Islands council yesterday backed a motion about banning industrial gilnet fishing so i wondered what action the government might be taking on that matter i wasn't aware of that i the motion that had been passed at shetland island council yesterday but of course i'll be happy to look at that in more detail i have of course had correspondence on this previously i mean this is a legal method of fishing we know there are conflicts there and again that was one point that we'd looked at through the future catching policy as well so of course we will be considering the responses that we've had to that going forward before we set out next steps thank you can i move on to concerns about spatial squeeze concerns raised by the fishing industry and particularly the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and personally i think the spatial squeeze phrase doesn't get across the gravity and seriousness of what it means to a fishing industry who fear being pushed out of traditional fishing grounds and spawning grounds being affected by as the government prioritises marine renewables over catches and producers of high quality healthy sustainable food renewables and energy security are obviously important but so to his food security so as managing competing demands on marine space relies on the national marine plan can you give an update on when the government will announce what plans there are to amend or replace the current plan i yeah no problem i'll try and address all of those points i'm in relation to what you've talked about in spatial squeeze i would really welcome that report that came forward from the sff in relation to that and i'm sure to be meeting with them in a few weeks i'm and no doubt that will be a large part of our discussions and it is an issue that's raised with me by other fisheries stakeholders to just to say first of all that i completely agree with what you've said there about it's an important protein source for us going forward and that's why we identified that and we specifically point to that in our blue economy vision that we pointed out to you but i don't think there's any doubt that there is there are competing pressures on our marine environment i think you look at our marine resource and it looks quite large when you look at when you see that the area that we are responsible for but of course there are a lot of competing uses for that space renewable offshore renewables we're also developing our mpa network looking at the delivery of hpmas as well which i know is of concern to the fishing industry as well but i would say that in relation to those points that's where the the processes that we go through are absolutely critical to that ensuring that fisheries voices are heard through our through the consultations that we hold as well making sure they're part of that engagement i think an example of that we have the scottmer programme which is looking at the energy research but there's a fisheries fishing group in relation to that looking at where are the gaps in evidence that we might need for as an example and to help us to try and identify those gaps as well so i think it's that ongoing engagement ensuring that you know across marine scotland that we're working collaboratively as well and ensuring those voices are heard we are trying to manage our way through this as much as we possibly can but of course we want to make sure that we have i think if anything all the global crises that we've seen we need to make sure that we have that resilience in terms of our energy but our food security is also critical so we've got to ensure that we enable that to and also because fishing is such an important part of so many communities and what will be specifically in your constituency in shetland but also for our coastal communities across scotland as well so we are trying to manage our way through this as much as possible but i think it's where our processes are really important in the planning and consenting and ensuring that fisheries voices are held i think did you have another question it was about the national marine plan too yeah we had that in the pfg that was published yesterday as well that we'll be looking to take forward the process and commence that process of developing a new plan as well so we'll be at the early stages of that work but again that's something i'm more than happy to keep the committee updated on as we go forward thank you allister allen thank you very much commander just before we leave some of those issues just so i can understand better you're saying that the in terms of future catching policy the priority given to tackling this card is not an area from which the scotland this area the scotch government intends to move away from those priorities no absolutely not we still want to meet those objectives and that's why we set out the policies that we did because a blanket one size approach doesn't fit all we know that the when it comes to the landing obligation it's really complex as it is at the moment which is why it's difficult for people i think to comply with that and i mean for example there's 480 exemptions that are within that at the moment so yeah it's a very complex environment and what we've done is again it's about that reducing the unwanted catch looking at the different measures with different sectors of the fleet as well again moving away from that one size fits all approach and also ensuring that we're actually more accountable if we have a better idea and people are better able to account for for the discards then we get a better picture of what the stocks are like which means that we can fish more sustainably going forward and if we're able to capture all of that information so ultimately that's what we're looking to try and achieve i know it has been construed as rolling back i would absolutely i'm i challenge that because it's about making a system more transparent simple and easier to comply with and i think those factors are really important but of course that's the reason we go out to consultation because we want to know what people think about what we're proposing one of the areas of at least potential consensus between environmental concerns and fishing industries around issues such as remote electronic monitoring and the potential that that has to make fishing a more efficient business can you say a bit more about what the next steps on that are and also whether things like in the future like winch monitors and cctv on board vessels whether these things are areas of activity that the scots government would want to see supported and if so how absolutely well that's where again it was really important that we had that consultation on the rollout of r.a.m because we think that we've we obviously have the commitment to roll out the vms to all parts to all vessels within the within the fishing fleet but we think that r.a.m could be targeted and that's where the focus on that initially is looking at the pelagic sector and we know that in our scallop vessels for example i think is over 10 meters with about 90 already have r.a.m installed which is hugely beneficial i think it helps us i think for for fishers as well of ourselves in terms of the data that we can collect from that as well but also for the fishers so again i think that's where it's it's really important that the consultation for that i think closed at the same time as the future catching policy we're analysing the results to that as well because we really want to hear that that feedback about that about the rollout the impact that that could have on the industry as well we know it would also be easier for some sectors than it may be for others so we want to make sure that with the rollout and if we are going to do that but that we get it right thank you just i'm going to move on to r.a.m. just very briefly what are the timescales for looking at this blend of obligations and discards when are we looking for you to come forward with your proposals again i think that'll just depend on the analysis and we're i don't know if i'll be able to give more of a timescale in terms of when we expect that to be complete but of course we'd be wanting to take the next steps from that in short order afterwards yeah the analysis is underway i think we'd be wanting to come back to the cabinet secretary you know in the very near future with a view on that analysis but i think more importantly is then to begin the conversations with the stakeholders a broad charts of stakeholders not just catchers in there through our fishes management and conservation group to start talking about what the consultation told us and how we actually go about implementing some of these things in a practical sensible way and what's the priority implementation there will no doubt be a list of things that come out thank you that's helpful but are we looking before the end of october before the turn of the year spring of 2023 roughly i'll have a better idea probably where the analysis of the consultation is at yet because obviously i haven't had that advice and i haven't seen the analysis of the response i think that's probably the only thing i can give a definitive order you know even remotely like a definitive timescale on rather than the next steps of that i mean of course i'm more than happy to come back to the committee with further information once we've once we've got that likewise a kind of a definitive time but it's my aspiration and hope that we begin conversations with stakeholders before the end of the year in the FMAC process that's that's all we need to know thank you that's helpful arrian Burgess thank you convener so i just kind of come back to spatial squeeze and so with what we've heard you know the importance of our waters and all of the things that we're trying to accomplish in there highly protected marine areas will be an important tool for strategically protecting key areas of our inshore waters and the bute house agreement specifies that these hpmas will cover at least 20 of our seas including parts of the inshore so users of the inshore space will want to know what this will mean for them and i've had meetings with inshore fishers and other folk around that and it seems like people it's a quite a lot of worry because people don't really know again timescale and really what it means and how they can be involved so i'd appreciate if the cabinet secretary could outline the next steps for hpm a designation and if she could confirm that there will be a gen that there will be genuine no take zones closed to all fishing aquaculture and other extractive or depositional commercial activities yes i'd be happy to so first of all i'd just want to reiterate that we are still working to the timescales that we've set out within that as well and just to clarify it was 10 percent of our waters as hpmas but i think it's really important i know that there is concern there out there about what that will mean for people which is why the engagement processes that go forward are going to be really critical because again i think it's like other areas we've talked about ensuring we get that feedback that people know what's happening what's going to mean for them is really important so of course we're going to be looking at developing that process we said that we would have them in place by the end of the parliamentary term in 2026 so working back from that there will be an awful lot of work to undertake so we'll be starting to engage on the what the site selection might look like in consulting on that and i would just want to reiterate as well that we will not be fast tracking or sidling any processing here or processing here and that we will be going and following all that due process in our engagement with people but i would also i think coming back to your point about you know what an hpm means but you know i think we've we've set that out and some of the information as well that we would see that that means that there isn't any activity that would be permitted to take place in an hpm other than what could be whether that's recreational use or or marine tourism those sorts of activities but it would be an exclusive zone and there wouldn't be any other activities that would be permitted to take place so we're we're potentially bringing forward areas that are genuine no take zones like lamblash bay around aran i'm i it's not possible for me to say what what sort of areas that we'd be looking at at the moment because of course that's something that we'd be looking to consult and engage on i but yeah that that sorts of activities wouldn't be permitted to be undertaken and then just on the on the piece of community engagement and involvement do you think there'll be scope for co-development and co-design of these hpm a's with coastal communities i think that's our engagement process is really important we want to make sure that all stakeholders who are affected by it are involved in these consultations you know whether that's the coastal communities themselves who of course will be impacted just given the fact of the very industries that take place there and there's also a variety of different industries that would be affected by the hpm a process as well you know we've heard from Beatrice Wish out there about the concerns about the spatial squeeze and what that means for fisheries interests for example so we want to make sure that we that we are engaging as widely as we possibly can going forward so that's where the processes that will have set out will be really important yeah i just want to be clear that when i talk about coastal communities i am including people who work in the fishing industry yes you know in the mix it's like i had a meeting over the summer with community in Argyll and it was fantastic because they all came together around this issue of hpm a's and what does it mean and they want to actually work together to to to kind of work through that process so it's how can we find a way you know how can the Scottish Government say okay here's the moment for you to get engaged so that's something i'll be looking forward to in terms of yeah that invitation to communities to to really help shape what that's going to look like absolutely because we're inviting a very big change here that is absolutely necessary for the future of our fisheries sorry i think i'll really want to come in on that yeah i was i was just to reinforce that that very point so that the process and the engagement will will be central and critical to the successful implementation of this because it's a very big change of no no human activity will not other than non-damange and that's marine tourism or kayaking or something like sailing or something and we're just about to we'll be consulting on the site selection criteria first and that will be engaging everybody and then then we'll move on to another consultation on actually selecting the sites and selecting the sites is where the engagement is just invaluable because local communities and fishers they know where the sensitive habitats are they they know the area they can understand you know for mapping it out and we can basically we all get in a room together with with maps and look at what are the features we're looking to protect here you know whether it's a vulnerable feature whether it's a carbon sink a nursery fishing area or whatever and then basically draw draw it out but in a very very collective manner yes okay thank you just before we move on to that i'm sure that the current sector agrees that there's multiple factors involved in the changes that we're seeing in our seas and you know it's really important to have robust scientific evidence to underpin any changes that are made can you tell us if there's any evidence at the moment that introducing a blanket or wide-ranging restrictions on mobile fishing gear and fishing waters would actually have the effect that some are claiming at the moment i would say the point that you've made there about research and evidence and science is really important and of course we want to have it to ensure that we have as robust an evidence base as possible but of course i think given the nature of our marine environment the size of it it's just not possible for us to always undertake every bit of research that we would like to do and i think when it was previously in one of my previous committee appearances we've talked about how we can potentially work with others you know whether that's our academic institutions with industry themselves to help us with various bits and pieces of research that we need to do i think in relation to i think blanket restrictions i don't know if you're potentially referring to the likes of i know there's been calls for a three mile a three mile limit in particular that's not something that we had been considering because we think that that blanket approach around the coast line isn't necessarily that's not a route that we would like to pursue because we don't think that that would necessarily have the impact that some may think it would and we don't agree with those sorts of blanket restrictions but and that but of course we will continue to undertake that work that we need to do trying to identify where we have research gaps as we go forward and i think that that process is going to be really important thank you thank you carin adam thank you convener good morning cabinet secretary i'd like to discuss a bit and seek some clarity and some answers from yourself in regards to our fishing industry and brexit i mean it's no secret that it's been a bit of a contentious issue particularly in my constituency in banter and bucking coast where a lot of people felt that what was promised to them hasn't been delivered and so from your point of view you know for example most most of our fish stocks that are of interest to the scotch fishing fleet are will they straddle international boundaries and they're still part of international negotiations UK fisheries management still continues to be in a state of interdependence and there's still significant EU access to UK waters this is not what the fishing industry and leaders thought was going to be for them for example mike park said you know i've got them quoted here it's clear for the offshore catching sector but exit failed to deliver any benefits of being a coastal state and we know that EU funds have not been fully replaced by the UK government as promised us yet i mean what are the implications for an industry and what has the Scottish government been able to do over this time period to support and and buffer buffer the effects i don't i would agree with your comments there and i don't think there's any doubt that the fishing industry didn't get what they expected or in fact what they were promised through brexit in relation to access so i think obviously we've been trying to to work as best we can and i think whenever we go into negotiations of course that's our ultimate objective is to try and ensure that we're doing our best for the Scottish fishing industry and for Scottish interests as well so in relation to the negotiations themselves i'm sure allan might want to talk a bit more about that process if that would be helpful for this year of course that hasn't started and we know that there has been some really challenging scientific advice in relation to some of the this talks previously but we're also working and officials are working with to try and ensure that the we are having an impact on for example the specialised committee for fisheries and the design and functioning of that going forward but again i would just come back to that our key objective in all of these and in these negotiations is doing what we can within the deals that have been negotiated and trying to protect Scottish industries where we can but i'll come to allan for the for more information on the negotiations themselves i mean just very quickly in the negotiations you're absolutely correct there's only there's only two stocks in the united kingdom that aren't shared with an international partner so all stocks of key interests to scotland are a form part of an international negotiation in multiple forums there's seven different international forums that we operate in so it's not a unilateral choice that we can make it's a negotiation often as a result of compromise but scots government myself and our officials are there with a key mandate from the cabinet secretary trying to do the best for the Scottish industry within the scientific advice using the best available advice acting responsibly and sustainably as well for the long-term future of the stocks we're quite fortunate that this year's negotiations will be against a backdrop of some very positive advice in terms of significantly recovering stocks in the north sea and the west of scotland actually so we go in with with optimism for this year thank you that's really helpful and good to know and optimism being a part of you know our scottish fishing industry is really something that we need right now they've really had a hammer in these last couple of years and just to ask we're facing another period of economic turmoil what's the outlook for our fishing sector is it optimistic i think well we always try to be i think in spite of the challenges that are there but i know that there are a lot of challenges facing the industry and the moment you know some of which we've touched on in the session already i know that the feeling the pressure and they're concerned about the spatial squeeze exists there but i think again that's where i think that i would point to our blue economy vision what we've set out for that and of course we'll be setting out the next steps in relation to that too because i think there are you know as ever when we talk about challenges there are also opportunities there as well we talked about our food security so you know our fishing industry is important is going to continue to be important going forward and providing us with that sustainable source of protein too and we are looking to enhance that where we can and the value that we can get from that too one thing that we haven't touched on today is just about the economic like provisions that we're looking to introduce next year ensuring that more fish are actually landed in Scotland that we see the benefit from that as well which i think is going to be really important and a really positive step forward yeah absolutely thank you and i'm grateful to hear about the the process inside of things being a big part of that absolutely important thank you Jenny Minto convener just a quick question really kind of going back to what the convener was asking i was very pleased because mr gibb you gave evidence earlier in the year i think in march about having to make a step change in how we consult so it's been positive hearing about the changes that you've been making also i think i also asked you then about monitoring when decisions have been made and monitoring the catch i just wonder if you could give us an update or give us more information as to how how monitoring decisions has has has come into play if that makes sense yeah i'm happy to come back on that point i think if there are specific issues i'm more than happy to follow up after in relation to monitoring but of course i do think that that is important in the decisions that we take or if we implement a policy that we see what the impact of that has has been and is it meeting the objectives that that we had hoped as well okay thank you so i suppose i was i was thinking about the Clyde and the the for one year into the the change in decision making if there's anything you can any information you can give on i suspected it was a Clyde you were thinking about so on that on that one just following that the commitment that i think it was possibly myself that gave yes once the closure was finished i think within a matter of two weeks we we met again with all of the stakeholders who we worked with to try and to try and design i accepted not everybody was 100 happy with the ultimate process and what we ended up with but we monitored with it being a new thing or a change to an existing thing we monitored quite closely during the closure very very positive results in terms of not seeing cod in catches in the areas that we had left open which supported the policy of leaving open mud where the cod weren't but the prawns weren't allow some fishing today place and we monitored activity through vms and we had patrol vessels there pretty regularly and analyzed all of that and it all looked and looks like the policy as implemented was doing what it's designed to do and being quite successful and we met with all the stakeholders shared all that information with them and you know there's nothing to dispute in there because it's factual there wasn't our inspections didn't find any cod when the nets were hauled up and that type of thing so we made a very specific effort there and we'll i would imagine whether in all things dependent be doing something similar for the for the following year okay thank you okay sorry have you got up no i was not i was wondering if i should move on to the aquaculture section yeah just to to let we we've covered two out of nine sections and well and nearly all our time i'm minded to prioritise some of the the more pressing and the more current issues so i'm going to rejig where we are so we're going to move on to aquaculture and then on to a island policy so if Jenny would you like to ask a question on aquaculture yes thank you thank you convener um we took evidence from professor griggs um with regard to his review and i'm going to quote from one of the statements that he made he said i thought throughout the review that one thing that we must do is put in place a system that tries to restore trust part of that is about making robust it robust enough for everybody's voice to be heard in it so i'm interested to hear from you cabinet secretary as to what your plans are how you're moving in that direction to make sure everyone's voice and even the ones that are perhaps more difficult to hear are heard you're absolutely right and i think it's um you had looked at the the session that the committee had held with professor griggs um because i think that i'm glad that the committee held that session we're able to go through that discussion with him and that's what i think the work that he did was was really important as well and i think there were some quite stark findings in that which of course is really some of which was really disappointing to to read but i think especially the comments that he was making about the the lack of trust that's there also about the the vitriol that exists within that as well i'm going to discuss them with professor griggs and what he said that i think he's had so many experiences within that that he hasn't seen in in any other sector so i think that's been one of the the key things for us going forward is essentially about how do we rebuild that trust how do we move from that that place where the relationships are so poor and and try and improve it i would say one of the key actions that we've taken since that report is establishing the scottish aquaculture council where we've tried to bring together the the broad range of interests around the table and try and move forward and progress some of those recommendations so we're still very early in the stages of that we had our first meeting towards the end of June and we're due to have a second meeting shortly so i'm really keen that we progress with that positive piece of work and i hopefully it can start to rebuild that trust as well and just to ask you more about new technologies as well in the industry and how that how that's progressing well i think that aquaculture as an industry is very innovative and i think there are lots of technical advances that we're seeing throughout that as well so i think that's what's particularly encouraging and exciting for for me to see because it's always changing all the time and there is so much investment in looking at that and how the sector can can better improve its environmental performance how it can become more sustainable as well so i think it's really important that we're able to to support that and enable those that innovation as we go forward to and we're just saying in relation to some of the other recommendations we obviously that professor griggs had brought forward that we broadly accepted them and we want to try and make that progress as quickly as we can across the recommendations where that's where that's possible we know some will take a bit longer than others and i think one of the recommendations that he made was about the licensing and how if that can go directly into the communities as well absolutely you're right in relation to that as well i would say that some of the other key pieces of work that we've taken forward on the back of the review so firstly we've established the scottish aquaculture council we've also taken forward a piece of work in relation to the consenting so we've set up a workgroup as part of that to look at the consenting issues and to see how we can really make progress on the recommendations and that relate to regulation within the review as well so hopefully we will start to see some quite quick progress there one immediate change that we've made for example was in relation to changing the marine license from six to 25 years doesn't change the environmental impact at all but it brings it into line with the crown of state leases so that was one immediate and positive change that that we were able to make on the back of that as well i would also say in relation to science is where we've made some action there was obviously the recommendation in relation to that as well so we've asked the scottish science advisory council to undertake a piece of work in relation to that to try and address some of those issues that were raised through the review so we'll be we'll be publishing the scope of the work that the ssac will be undertaking and any final reports that they publish as well then we really want to try and bring that transparency to the whole process we want to make sure because it all comes back to your initial question there about trust and about rebuilding that in the process which i hope through some of those immediate measures that we've undertaken we'll be able to get there thank you i just remind everybody we've got 20 minutes can we keep our questions and answers as succincted as possible arrian Burgess thank you convener i think next time when the cabinet secretary comes in we're going to need three hours to get through all these very important issues with a break of course so i understand that the government is also furthering many of the recommendations made by last session's rural economy and connectivity committee in parallel to the greg's review recommendations a key recommendation from the rec committee was and i am going to quote from the 2018 report the scottish government should as a matter of priority initiate a spatial planning exercise with a view to developing strategic guidance specifying those areas across scotland that are suitable or unsuitable for siting of salmon farms this work should amongst other things incorporate an assessment of the potential impact of salmon farms on marine protected areas and priority marine features and the species which inhabit them i understand that various forms of spatial planning are already underway or being planned and the pfg notes the importance of spatial planning as a means to guide development can the cabinet secretary advise whether these processes will include an assessment of the impact of salmon farm pollution on mpa's pms as the rec committee recommended and i'm also curious as to whether any work is being done to assess the current use of each area such as crealing and use of the coast by locals and tourists and the loss of use that a salmon farm could cause to that non succinct question please i'll try as hard as possible i think it just shows the broad range of works that goes on across the portfolio though which is why we're running out of time to to address all the areas but i would say in relation to spatial planning i mean that already has to be considered in relation to in developments you know it's set through the national marine plan regional marine plans and also we've outlined that in npf4 as well and i'd really be aware that when especially when we're looking at protected areas or protected features like whether that's mpa's or pms that should be taken into consider the specific features they're protected for should be taken into consideration in relation to any decisions that are made as regards the the the siting of development but i think one thing i'd be happy to do with the committee and to follow up on this after if you'd like probably more of a summary of where we're at in relation to some of the previous recommendations that we made because one point i would want to take forward one point i would want to make clear to the committee is of course that we are taking forward the griggs recommendations but that doesn't mean all other pieces of work have gone out the window and i would just highlight the other work that we've brought forward we also published our response to the salmon interactions working group and have taken action in relation to that we had progressed and completed a lot of the recommendations that i come forward from the previous committee reviews we're still making progress against others so i'm happy to provide information to the committee with progress against each of those commitments if you would find that helpful that selling would be thank you for that Beatrice Wishart thanks convener i've just got a question about the renewal of marine licenses in regard to salmon farms i've heard concerns that there are delays in the renewal process i wonder if you could comment on that and that leads on to issues that i've raised before about marine scotland being perhaps not sufficiently resourced to cope with the demands that it faces i recognize i think that that's a concern that i've heard again about the potential delays and i think because there are i mean that that was highlighted through the review there are a number of different processes that when we're looking for a salmon farm to be put in place and various licenses that people have to apply for to various different bodies so i think that that's a piece of work that i think the consenting task force has been looking at in relation to the timescales i would say that i think a lot of those timescales are met but we do know examples where that hasn't happened but i would say that if you have been contacted with specific issues then please do write to me and make me aware and i'd be happy to look into that further thank you we're now going to move on to questions in island policy and back to Beatrice yeah thanks convener it's just about them the national island's plans priorities in terms of we've seen you know pretty horrific fuel cost increases on island communities so it's just an understanding of whether the plans priorities are still the same as those of people actually living on the islands i mean a couple of examples would be the increased costs in inter-island ferries and fuel consumption there and the other one that's been brought to light is the impact on the pelagic fishing industry where obviously there's quite a large number of pelagic boats in my constituency and one of the issues that was raised to me was increases in fuel of over 300 so it's just an understanding of your views on that absolutely i think it's the situation is critical and i think particularly while we're all aware of the cost of living crisis i think my inbox will be as full as anybody else's in relation to what they're seeing within their own communities but i think it's our rural and island areas that are undoubtedly experiencing the worst of this and are seeing the highest fuel poverty levels you know and that's in the various industry sectors as well as amongst households as well i'm just here in the other week i think that shetland had published information about the impact they were they were going to see i was in orcney last week where i was hearing about the impact and the really stark impact that they're expecting to see as a result of energy cost increase as well so within the natural islands plan we obviously have fuel poverty and addressing that as one of the the key strategic objectives so that is a priority within the plan and it will remain a priority going forward but i think that it's obviously vital we have to do what we can to try and tackle these issues as much as it's within our power to do so i think some of the increases there that you're speaking about in relation to fuel we obviously don't have the power to address some of those problems but of course i will be i have continued previously raised that with with the UK government to see what action more action can be taken in relation to that and i of course will raise it with my new counterpart in the UK government who's just recently been appointed to and will be doing that with the utmost urgency because i think the situation is really critical for a lot of the businesses and communities on our islands and i think when it was on my visit last week i think well one business that i spoke to was talking to you about increases in their energy costs from 1.6 million a month to 9 million i mean how many people can afford to accept that so that's where we need to ensure we're doing what we can for our island communities thank you Jenny Minto thank you convener i'm interested to know about how you are consulting with the island communities to understand exactly what they need like miss wishart i have had similar volume of emails about concern from concerned islanders about the rocketing price of fuel because it tends to be fuel oil and there's no cap on that so it's how that how how you're getting that information into your systems and listening to what islanders are needing absolutely well our islands team works across government and because a lot of these issues are cross cutting obviously so if we look at fuel poverty and issues surrounding that it's a huge concern to me from a rural and islands perspective but i know that it also cuts across various other colleagues whether that's Shona Robison and Patrick Harvey as well in relation to insulation of buildings too so first of all we make sure that we're looking at that across government and what we can do to address it but also our islands team but it's important they have that outreach as well they were with me last week when we were in Orkney collecting that data and information i would say that that information is really important for us to get so Orkney one of the groups that i'd done there had undertaken a piece of work there's the work that's been done in Shetland we want to collect all of that to make sure we have a grasp of just how big these issues are and then what we can do to help our communities try and address that as well so it is a priority for us very briefly our islands team is not based in Sokarton house they are across scotland so Erica Clarkson head of the team based in Orkney so they have real lived experience and direct contact with communities Rachel Hamilton thank you cabinet secretary the islands bond policy was launched in last year's programme for government to tackle depopulation but it's been rejected by islanders can you tell us why? well it was exactly that i think we had the consultation and we had the engagement on the islands bond policy and you'll know that we've since withdrawn that policy now because we listened to our island communities and what we heard through that consultation and through that engagement so i think that when we set out the results of the consultation it was fairly evenly split but it was very clear that island communities didn't want to see the bond and i think they had concerns about it concerns that more could be done to actually retain populations within island communities and they felt that that's where resourcing could go and should go so we listened to what we heard and that's why we've since announced that we would be withdrawing that policy okay i find it a sort of cart for the horse because i think if you've got an island's team and the government are listening they would know that the islanders must have thought that you know that this was going to be a short-term fix that the scheme was open to abuse that the investment was too small so and also that it might have a divisive impact on communities so i think it's disappointing that now we're seeing that we have to delay addressing the depopulation issue interestingly sam and scotland have called for a 10 million pound revenue from crown estate to be invested in coastal communities to tackle depopulation and i just wondered if it was something that the scotish government were considering i just want to i think address some of a couple of the comments that you've made there as well though because the island's bond was we never thought it was going to be the silver bullet to the problem of a depopulation of our islands it was never intended to be that and i think the engagement and the consultation that we undertake was really important because that's then helped inform the next steps that we're going to take so as a result of that we've committed to bringing forward and looking at some practical policy tests that's directly as a result of the consultation feedback we received and listening to some of those suggestions and seeing how we can take that forward because of course communities had their own ideas about what could be done it's also not delaying population and tackling depopulation on our islands either that's always been a priority within the island's plan and that's always been an objective and we're still taking forward those proposals again it's about tackling a whole host of issues and doing that in a holistic way so it doesn't delay the work that we've done it could have been a tool we consulted on it we didn't think it would work which is why we're not taking that forward but it hasn't delayed and it hasn't held back any other work in relation to that as well and then sorry coming to the key part of your question which i've now forgotten it was about salmon that scotland asking for investment in coastal communities using the revenue from rents from crown estate i'm obviously i'm happy to look at various different suggestions that are there because i would say that when it comes to aquaculture i mean i've been in a colony previously i'm but that was more direct investment from one of the the companies there and seeing the impact that that's had i'm but yes of course we continue to unhappy to have that discussion with industry and could you let the committee know when the addressing depopulation action plan is going to be launched do you know that now i can't give you the definitive date for that at the moment or and because there's various pieces of work going on in relation to that but of course i'd be happy to keep the the committee updated on that work but again there is there are other pieces of work that are happening in relation to population and to depopulation too for example i think i can't remember if i touched on this in my previous committee appearance when we were discussing the national islands plan but part of that is you know being undertaken pilots with the convention of islands and islands and looking at work that that we can take forward there so that's still been continuing on in the background but the depopulation action plan i'll be happy to come back with more information thank you it strikes me as a positive thing that governments listen to consultations and listen to views that are put to them it was mentioned here that there was a balanced opinion in some of the the consultation responses just going by my own my own constituency correspondence i think it only got to a balance by counting all the ones from central america who seemed to be very positive about the idea some for some reason or other news had circulated widely in the press there about the policy i have no idea why but i suppose my serious point is that what was the process of listening that was undertaken and what was the process of reasoning that was that was used to reach the decision you reached yeah you're absolutely right and that's the thing well i say that the outcome of the consultation was balanced it's probably not entirely fair because you're absolutely right i think it was when we look at those that weren't in favour of the proposal it was the people from our island communities that felt that way but pretty much everybody else in the world thought it was a fantastic idea but i think that in my role it's important that we listen to our island communities and it i think it's really important that that we do listen and that we're open to that and opening to listen to different suggestions as to how other things work because no doubt if we'd plowed on regardless it'd be getting even more criticism then so and again that's where just to emphasise that the suggestions that we are looking to take forward from that really positive and constructive engagement that was held so there had been various consultation events that had taken place both virtually and on islands event after the consultation closed the islands team had gone out again to have various engagement events to and really to have that discussion with communities and that's what's really formed the basis of the practical policy test that like to say we're wanting to try some of those ideas let's let's see if they work and if they are able to have that that positive impact thank you and certainly this is a conversation i know i've had before but i suppose one of the themes to me seem to be coming through was that people were were keen to see measures that benefited whole communities rather than individuals which i think was one of the criticisms that was made of the original proposal i mean that leads me in the limited time we've got to talk about housing and that certainly is always identified to me as an island msp is not the only but one of the huge obstacles in the way of people in many communities from from staying and from starting businesses or expanding their businesses in island communities so i just wonder if you can say a bit about having gone through this exercise having considered that point where the where the governance thinking now is on housing in island areas and in particular how to ensure that the obstacles that i think were identified during this consultation exercise have overcome and that local authorities and housing associations build in places that are difficult to build in their local authority areas not just the places that are easy yeah you're absolutely right and i think that this is definitely one thing that has also come up to me i think whenever i've been out visiting islands is is lack of housing and particularly lack of affordable housing that was definitely a message that came out loud and clear to me in Orkney last week and you know people actually where they're desperate well there's labour shortages i mean right across the piece and across all industries and where they've had the opportunity you know they've got the jobs there for people but you know people haven't been able to accept positions that have been offered to them because there isn't the housing there for them or they can't afford it and and there's a variety of different factors within that whether that's you know second homes short-term lets and i think that's the thing when we're looking at tackling populate depopulation and trying to retain populations is you know there isn't one easy solution that's going to fix all of this there's a variety of factors within there but that's where our commitments around our remote rural and islands housing action plan and bringing that forward are going to be really important going forward because we've got to continue that investment in relation to that and ensuring that that we're taking account of the issues that you talked about there as well and about like you said the location of that and where any new housing developments take place but also that we're looking at some of these other measures too in relation to whether that's that short-term lets and obviously there's been the the moves in that regard as well so it is a really important issue again a part of the islands plan and what we're looking at there to and I think what was really what we'd also done in Orkney last week was launch the young islanders network and I've invited some of the young islanders to take part in the national islands plan delivery group as well because I think it's really important that we have our young people's perspective in there too these are the people that we want to remain and to live and work on our islands and that they're able to feed in that process and into our policies going forward thank you Jenny Minto thank you convener just a quick question on the progress that's being made with carbon neutral islands if you can provide us with a bit of an update yes the work on that has been progressing and I know that our islands team I think had literally just been in Orkney before me and doing some engagement on that as well so the work is progressing and of course I'd be happy to keep that the committee updated in relation to that so great to hear about the deep the depopulation plan and I just wonder if you could update us on other policy measures to encourage repopulation for example I know there's work around repopulation zones and to hear what's going on there in the islands and also visa pilot schemes anything that you're working on would be great absolutely again some of this I'd be happy to follow up with in correspondence to give more of that detail but just as I was alluding to earlier there's been the the parts we've been looking at through the convention of islands and islands and the work that's been ongoing there we're obviously working on the depopulation action plan as well which is being led by the cabinet secretary for constitution I also have a key part in that work as well in relation to our rural and island areas within that so again it's about there are so many different factors that we know affect populations so it's about making sure that we're taking action on all those fronts including some of what I'd outlined to Alistair Allan and his questions there in relation to in relation to housing but again I'm more than happy to follow up on that work and provide more detail as to where we're at with some of those pilots you also mentioned the rural visa pilot scheme as well so that was on the back of well pre when Sadja Javid was the home secretary at that time the UK government had said that they were open to considering that we know that there are differentiated immigration schemes in other countries across the world so that's what we felt it's important to look at what that could look like for Scotland and we've been working on those proposals as well but I'll provide more of an update thank you Karen Adam thank you convener and I know we're really running short on time here so perhaps it would be appropriate for me to ask for an update on avian flu to be given in written correspondence as well and just to quickly say I have visited Troophead in my constituency and it's just absolutely heartbreaking and devastating and the effects of it will probably be you know generational for many years to come I could I'd be happy to follow up in writing but I would say that there are a number of pieces of work that have been undertaken because I think what you're talking about there has been this has been the the biggest outbreak that we've ever seen we've lost a third of the world's population of sphalbar barnacle piece I think in terms of Gannots we've lost over 7,000 5,000 of those from Baskerville alone yeah so it's horrifying to see what's been going on in relation to the more domestic flocks there's been a piece of work that's been taken forward by APHA looking at for example we don't register we don't ask people to register birds if they have under 50 so is that a change we need to make to learn the lessons from what we've been through so far in relation to domestic flocks and wild birds in nature scot have also taken forward a task force I'll provide the committee with more information on that because they provide fortnightly updates in relation to the work that they're undertaking so we just want to give that assurance today that we are looking to learn the lessons and to see how we can learn from this going forward it is hard to intervene or especially in relation to wild birds but I think we have to take whatever action we can to if we can't prevent it but at least try to manage these these outbreaks as best we can thank you very much cabinet secretary we've finished nearly on time we really appreciate that we've tried to squeeze as much in as possible we've probably got through a third of the topics but we will we'll follow up on writing on some of the topics that we were we're going to question you on on you today and maybe by annual meetings are not quite enough we maybe need slightly more but thank you very much and for your officials for for joining this morning we will briefly suspend until 10 40 and our next item is consideration of the rural support simplification and improvements scotland regulations 2022 ssi 2022 slash 206 an instrument is subject to the negative procedure and I refer members to paper 2 in the briefing pack which is on pages 21 to 25 does any member have any comment on this instrument no well that concludes our business in public and we will now move into private session thank you