���˿���

That is what I was coming to. We are getting a variety of feedback, based on some of what George Burgess touched on in his previous response. From what we hear, people are planning to undertake the work but have not done it yet and may do it in the coming year. It is to do with capacity as well—for some, carrying out that work has been an issue.

George, do you want to come in on the feedback that we are receiving?

You referred to the increase in funding that we have received from the UK Government, but, as I outlined in one of my previous responses, that equates to a 4.8 per cent cut since 2021. The inflationary pressures that we have seen—I think that inflation hit 11.1 per cent in October—mean that whatever increase we have had will always be worth less. When we look at the EU replacement funding—

First of all, thank you for raising the monitor farm programme, which I neglected to mention in my response. I was really excited to announce that initiative. Funding of £1.4 million will be provided for the programme over the next few years. We know that the programme works in terms of engagement, and that it encourages the sharing of knowledge and expertise. Undertaking a second round of the programme is really important.

Of course, we have done that with agri-tourism as well. Again, it is really important to see that really exciting part of the sector continue to grow and develop.

We continue to invest through schemes. We are funding the monitor farm programme through the knowledge transfer and innovation fund. We are investing £36 million in the agri-environment climate scheme over the coming year. I have mentioned other schemes, too.

You mentioned the Nature Friendly Farming Network, with which I have had quite a lot of engagement. It is a fantastic network. I have regular engagement with our key stakeholders. We also have an agriculture, biodiversity and climate change network, which we are encouraging people to get involved with, to share the knowledge and expertise that we have.

In my opening statement, I said that one of the priorities is the transformation to net zero and becoming a net zero economy. We know that we have to fund that and that we need to help with that transition where we can. That is why we have provided funding across those various schemes—to continue with that work, to invest in it, to drive the change that we want to see and, ultimately, to deliver on our vision for agriculture, too.

One good thing about having the national test programme is that, when the funding for that part of the farm advisory service was exhausted, people were directed to the national test programme as a means of having that funding. The farm advisory service contracts for that were due to be up in April of this year, and we have extended those.

We obviously want to work on uptake and ensure that we are not working across each other. Going to the farm advisory service is one route, but we want people to take part in the national test programme. That is what I mean about the number of carbon audits that we have seen. It is positive that the fund has been exhausted, because almost as many audits were done within those few months as were undertaken in the whole of the previous year. That shows that we are heading in a positive direction.

Of course, any of that feedback is important. As I said, this is the first year of the scheme, so there could be lessons that we can learn. I do not think that the problem is the accessibility of the scheme or the ability to claim. It is about trying to identify where the issues are so that, I hope, we can improve for the future years of the programme. Again, we want as many people as possible to be involved and to get on board. It is in our best interests to do that, so we want to work to make that happen.

Thanks very much for highlighting that example. I am happy to take a closer look at that, if you want to contact me about it. That is a shining example, which is really important. I touched on some of the networks that we have. There is so much good work happening across Scotland—I see it all the time when I am visiting farm businesses. We talked about the monitor farms and how important that work is. There are many different networks and examples out there that people can engage with, and I absolutely encourage them to do that. As I said, we are more than happy to learn the lessons from this year of the programme. Sharing that learning and expertise is vital.

I talked about the monitor farms being one of the key projects. With £1.4 million over the next few years, that is one of the most significant projects that we will fund. I would be happy to come back to the committee with more information on the allocations that we have made in the current financial year and who has been awarded funding. Of course, the Soil Association was awarded funding through that scheme previously. I have visited dairy farms in the south of Scotland where that funding has been utilised as well.

The title of the fund is “knowledge innovation”, and we are at a time when we want to see that come forward. The fund has helped some exciting projects in the past, and the monitor farms are obviously a key part of that. I look forward to seeing what other applications come forward. Again, I am happy to write to the committee with more details of some of the successful projects that have been awarded funding through the scheme so far.

Yes, I would be happy to come back to the committee and outline that information.

Yes. The support for those schemes is being maintained. For example, there is £2 million for the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, and the Farm Advisory Service is being funded with £5 million. George Burgess has the budget line where that falls. I am happy to come back with more information on the budget lines for the various funds, as I understand from looking at the table, and given some of the funds that we have discussed today, just how confusing it can be. Some funds translate to a different title in the budget headings as well, which will not be helpful for the committee.

Yes—the islands programme, in particular, and the capital allocation. As I have said to the committee previously and throughout the session today, the capital budget is extremely constrained. As I said in response to Dr Allan’s question, the allocation for the islands programme is not the only capital funding that will go to our islands this year. We have the islands growth deal as well. The heads of terms for that were signed towards the start of 2021, and it will see £50 million from the Scottish Government and £50 million from the UK Government go towards capital funding for our islands. It is important to bear in mind that that will come forward over the next few years.

Given the restrictions that I face in the capital budget, it is really a question of trying to utilise that as best we can. What we have tried to do—and what we are trying to do for the coming year—is to make improvements to that programme, particularly based on the feedback and the evidence that the committee has heard. I outlined some of the changes that have been made in the letter that I sent to the committee.