³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I absolutely agree with you. We want to make it as easy as possible for people to take part and to be part of that transformation.

You touched on—other members might want to come in on this—carbon audits and the low uptake. We are really disappointed by the low uptake of the scheme so far, but that is why the work that we have been undertaking with the agriculture reform implementation oversight board—ARIOB—has been important in helping us to design schemes that are easy to access and offer the right incentives. I believe that we have provided that through the scheme, even though the uptake through it has not been what we would want to see.

This is the first year of the scheme’s operation. The committee might have suggestions as to how we can better communicate things. We have done our best to work with the various organisations and stakeholders to get the message out as far as possible to explain what help and support is available. I am happy to take any suggestions on how that could be improved.

Ultimately, the co-development and co-design process that we are working through for future policy is to help us get over some of the hurdles. We do not want to put up barriers and we do not want to make the transformation and some of the changes that we need to see difficult for our farmers and crofters. We want to make it as easy as possible, and that is what we are trying to do through the schemes.

As I said in my response to Rachael Hamilton, I am happy to write to the committee with more information on each scheme if you would find that helpful.

As I said in response to Rachael Hamilton’s questions, we know that there is strong demand, in particular, for capital items, which can make an impact. On what we want to transform, as we have outlined in our vision for agriculture, we want Scotland to be that global leader when it comes to sustainable and regenerative farming. We know that we need to do what we can to lower emissions and enhance biodiversity so, through that fund and through some of the other schemes that we have, including the agri-environment climate scheme, which I talked about, and various other funds, we are looking to encourage the uptake of various practices and to help fund the pieces of equipment that we know can have a big impact on emissions.

We will, of course, take all those factors into consideration as we develop the scheme and before we launch it. As I said, we will be happy to keep the committee updated with further information on that. That will be a big issue going forward. It would be great to have a bigger capital budget to allow us to invest more in that but, unfortunately, we are in the position that we are in with the capital allocations that we have received. In the current financial year, we have really tried to target funding where we think it would have the biggest impact on emissions reductions, and we will of course consider those factors as we develop the scheme.

Yes.

People will, of course, be disappointed if they are not able to apply to the scheme this year, but I am not able to quantify that, because I do not know how many people were successful in relation to the applications that we saw this year.

George Burgess might have the overall figures for the applications that we received for the fund, if those would be helpful.

Yes. No problem.

I am happy to elaborate on that as well.

The £50 million of financial transactions has been removed this year because that was the loan scheme that we operated. The committee will be aware that we moved to a system of advance payments for farmers this year, instead of operating a loan scheme, which is far more efficient than what we operated previously. We have also brought forward the payments in that scheme through the Scottish statutory instrument that was introduced in September. We do not have the financial transactions there because we do not need to utilise them.

The fund is under development, and we are working on what improvements can be made to it. I cannot remember the exact scheme specifications off the top of my head. George Burgess might have that information to hand. Again, I am happy to provide that information after the meeting. I know that, because of the means testing element and who could apply, it was quite difficult for people to access the fund. Obviously, we want to improve that where we can.

Obviously, it is disappointing for a lot of people that there will no longer be that fund. It is another area that can be improved and in which the process can be made better for people. The work that we do on that over the coming few months and financial year will be important as we seek to make improvements, building on the feedback that we have received and the various criticisms that were made of that fund.

However, in saying that, I know that the scheme’s withdrawal will impact a lot of businesses because that is investment that they may not be able to undertake otherwise. For example, I recently visited the Scottish Shellfish Marketing Group, in Bellshill, which was awarded funding through that scheme to upgrade its freezing facilities. The group is a co-operative for mussel and oyster farmers across Scotland, and such facilities are a huge investment for them, so it is important that they get that funding.

For other businesses, the issue has been energy efficiency. This year, more than any other, given the increased costs that people face, any investment that can be made in energy efficiency will be welcomed, and we want to help with that as much as possible. If businesses are not able to undertake that work, the result will be increased costs, especially given the way in which energy costs are heading. We want to offer support with that, but we need to make sure that we are doing it in the right way and in a way that works for businesses that apply to the scheme. It is important that we take the time to get it right.