³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I completely agree with your first point. I certainly hope that we are not demonising the industry. It has felt demonised, which I do not think is fair at all.

On the proposals that we have made and the changes that we are looking to make, a key point is that we have committed to maintaining direct payments, but we are moving to 50 per cent conditionality. That is set out in the enhanced part of the framework that we have put forward in the consultation.

Another key part of the new framework in the consultation is its flexible nature and adaptability. We must recognise not only that challenges are coming down the line, but that there will be a lot of innovation. Technologies could emerge that we are not aware of and which we do not use at the moment, and we need to build into the framework the flexibility to deal with such technological advances and advances in science and research. We must have a framework that can be adapted in the future, that is less rigid than what we had before and that is less limiting than is currently the case.

Through the consultation, we are looking to give ourselves the enabling powers to tackle some of those issues and to build in conditionality in a way that we cannot do at the moment. I can give an example of that, which concerns the proposals that we have put forward on animal health and welfare. At the moment, we have the ability—indeed, the specific powers—to compensate people if there is a disease outbreak; however, we do not have powers to standardise what the minimum requirements for animal health could or should be, nor do we have powers to enable us to fund certain elements of that. It is really important that we have such powers.

Another important element of the proposed agriculture bill that has attracted less attention than the issue of what a future payment framework will look like—which, rightly, has been a significant concern—is the modernisation of tenancies that is being considered. From visiting various farms, I have heard about the inability of some farmers to diversify or to consider measures such as tree planting to enhance biodiversity. We want to make it easier for everyone to play their part by taking action in that area. There is a host of important proposals on waygo provisions and rent reviews that are intended to modernise agricultural tenancies.

It is vitally important. It is absolutely critical—there is no question about that. Of course, we are operating in a completely different environment from the common agricultural policy, under which we had a seven-year multi-annual budget, so we knew what was coming and could plan for that period in advance. We now operate in a very different environment in which we do not have clarity for that period of time, which makes things more difficult.

It is a priority for me and for the Government to ensure that we have a resilient food system and that we look at our food security.

As, I think, we said in the consultation, we agree with the overall objectives. The situation is similar to the situation with replacing the CAP. The new CAP has 10 objectives and, although our framework might deviate in the technicalities, we are, ultimately, looking to achieve the same aim. The same applies in relation to our future catching policy. We have the opportunity to look at how we can put in place a better operation in Scotland that does all the things that we want it to do.

We want to stop the unwanted catch in the first place where we can, and we want to ensure that we have a simple and effective system that delivers on the objectives that we know that the EU wants to achieve. It is not possible for me to set that out precisely because, again, I have not been through the consultation analysis. There could be changes on the back of that or things that we need to consider in more detail. I would be happy to keep the committee updated on the next steps.

You are absolutely right. I looked at the session that the committee held with Professor Griggs, and I am glad that it held that session and that it was able to go through that discussion with him.

The work that Professor Griggs did was really important, and there were some quite stark findings in it. Some of the review was really disappointing to read, especially his comments about the lack of trust and about the vitriol that exists. From discussing matters with him, I think that he had many experiences that he had not seen in any other sector. A key issue for us is how we can rebuild that trust, move from the place in which the relationships are so poor and try to improve those.

One of the key actions that we have taken since the report has been establishing the Scottish Aquaculture Council, in which we have tried to bring the broad range of interests together around the table and to progress some of the recommendations. That is still in its very early stages. We had our first meeting towards the end of June, and we are due to have the second meeting shortly. I am keen that we progress with that positive piece of work, and I hope that that can start to rebuild trust.

I will try as hard as possible. It just shows the broad range of work that goes on across the portfolio, though, which is why we are running out of time in which to address all the areas.

Spatial planning already has to be considered in relation to developments. That is set out through the national marine plan and regional marine plans, and we have also outlined that in national planning framework 4. Everybody will be aware, especially when we are looking at protected areas or features, whether they are MPAs or PMFs, that the specific features for which they are protected should be taken into consideration in relation to any decisions that are made regarding the siting of developments.

One thing that I would be happy to follow up with, if the committee would like, is a summary of where we are in relation to some of the previous recommendations that were made. A point that I want to make clear to the committee is that, although we are, of course, taking forward the Griggs recommendations, that does not mean that all other pieces of work have gone out the window.

I will just highlight other work that we have brought forward. We have published our response to the salmon interactions working group and we have taken action in relation to that. We have also progressed and completed a lot of the recommendations from the previous committee’s reviews, and we are still making progress against others. I am happy to provide information to the committee about progress against each of those commitments, if you would find that helpful.

I recognise and have heard that concern about potential delays. We know, because it was highlighted through the review, that there are a number of processes involved when we are looking at a salmon farm being put in place, and that people have to apply for various licences from various different bodies. The consenting task force has been doing a piece of work on timescales, many of which are met, but we know of examples where that has not happened. If you have been contacted about specific issues, please write to me to make me aware of them. I would be happy to look into them further.

Absolutely. Our islands team works across the Government, because many such issues are cross-cutting. For example, fuel poverty and associated issues are of huge concern to me from a rural and islands perspective, but I know that they cut across the portfolios of my colleagues—for example, those of Shona Robison and, in relation to buildings insulation, Patrick Harvie.

First, we ensure that we are viewing such issues across the Government, to see what we can do to address them. However, it is important that our islands team also has opportunities for outreach. They were with me when I was in Orkney last week, and they were collecting such data and information, which is really important for us to obtain. One of the groups that I met there had undertaken a piece of work, and other work is being done in Shetland. We want to collect all that information to ensure that we have a grasp of just how big the issues are before we consider what we can do to help our communities to address them. That is a priority for us.

I am sorry, George—do you want to come in?

It was exactly because we had consultation and engagement on the policy. As you know, we have announced that we will withdraw the policy; that is because we listened to our island communities through what we heard in the consultation and engagement process. When we set out the results of the consultation, the responses were fairly evenly split, but it was clear that island communities did not want the islands bonds policy. They had concerns about it; they thought that more could be done to retain populations in island communities and felt that resources should go towards that. We listened to what we heard, which is why we have announced that we will withdraw the policy.

I will address a couple of those comments. We never thought that the islands bond would be a magic bullet for addressing the problem of depopulation on our islands; it was never intended to be that. The engagement and consultation that we undertook were really important, because they have informed the next steps that we will take. As a direct result of consultation feedback and of listening to suggestions about how we might take things forward—communities, of course, had their own ideas about what could be done—we have committed to looking at some practical policy tests.

What happened has not delayed tackling depopulation on our islands. That has always been a priority and an objective in the islands plan, and we are still taking forward proposals. We need to tackle a host of issues in a holistic way. What happened has not delayed the work that we have done. The policy could have been a tool; we consulted on it, but we think that it would not work, which is why we are not taking it forward. However, that has not delayed or held back any other related work.

I am sorry, but I have now forgotten the key part of your question.

When I said that the outcome of the consultation was balanced, that was probably not entirely fair. You are absolutely right: the people who were not in favour of the proposal were from our island communities, but pretty much everybody else in the world thought that it was a fantastic idea. In my role, it is really important to listen to our island communities and to be open to various suggestions on how other things might work. I have no doubt that we would, if we had ploughed on regardless, have got even more criticism.

I emphasise that the suggestions that we want to take forward come from that positive and constructive engagement. Various consultation events took place virtually and on islands. After the consultation closed, the islands team went out again to various engagement events and discussions with communities. That has formed the basis of the practical policies. As I say, we want to try some of the ideas and see whether they work and can have a positive impact.