Seòmar agus comataidhean

Let me say a couple of things about that. First, I go back to the point that, with less money, we have less money and there is less money to go round. The decisions that we have taken have been very difficult. There is the ring-fenced funding of £61 million, on which I have given a commitment that it will be returned to the portfolio. The first instalment of £15 million will be returned in 2024-25. I will look at the remainder of the funds being returned in full at the right time, in negotiation with the sector, to help—

No, but I want to do it in a way that supports the reform and transformation of Scotland’s farming and food production industry. That is the purpose of that funding—that is what the sector wants it to be for. However, I want to do it in a way that brings it in at the right time for the sector. If we do not do it at the right time, there is a danger of its potentially not being spent. The preparation has to be done so that, when it comes to the reform and transformation process, we are clear about what is needed when.

Those discussions are on-going, but I can give an absolute commitment that all of the £61 million will be returned and that it will be done in a way that is absolutely in line with what the sector needs.

I have been very clear with the retail, hospitality and leisure sector when I have met organisations or, indeed, individual businesses that the choice in what I did with the £260 million out of the £310 million of consequentials was between investing it in public services or business tax cuts, and I could not in all conscience not invest the money in public services, primarily the NHS. As Liz Smith will be aware, we hear day in, day out from her own back benchers calls for additional public spending in many areas, including the NHS. I suspect that, had I used the £260 million to fund business tax cuts for retail, hospitality and leisure, I would have been answering questions either here or in Parliament as to why there was less money for front-line public services.

Ultimately, these decisions have to be made, but in a constrained fiscal environment where money is tight, I cannot in all conscience not give the money to the NHS rather than business tax cuts. It is for others to say whether they would have made different choices and what the impact would have been on public services.

I do not know who you have been speaking to. I speak regularly with local government leaders of all parties, and I have given those assurances to be helpful. I thought that it was important to give certainty on that, not least because COSLA was asking me about the baselining. That is alongside the £45 million, which is contingent on the spring budget showing that that is a positive addition rather than something that leaves us in a negative position.

The relationship with local government has been challenging in this budget process. Probably every budget that I can recall has been a time of tension with local government, and this year is no different. However, one of COSLA’s top asks was about the share of the budget, and I would just reflect that local government’s share of the overall budget is increasing, from 31 per cent to 32 per cent. Despite the challenging fiscal environment, local government has an increasing share of what is a constrained cake, if you like—local government has a bigger slice of it. That needs to be borne in mind.

I will continue to discuss those issues with local government. There is a lot that we are working very positively on. We do not always hear about that in the public domain, but a lot of joint work is going on in a lot of areas that will be good for public services.

No. The Verity house agreement is really important to COSLA. I met the presidential team just a couple of weeks ago and they stressed, despite the difficulties of the budget and some of the disagreements, how important the Verity house agreement is to them because, apart from anything else, it will deliver a new fiscal framework that will be helpful going forward. The agreement has delivered a range of areas of progress. Again, we perhaps do not hear about them because, inevitably, the areas that get the attention in the public domain are those where there is disagreement rather than those on which there is agreement, but there is huge agreement in a lot of major areas of policy that we are taking forward.

There is nothing different this year from any other year.

The payment will be revenue, because the drawdown that we are using is resource drawdown. I will get back to you if there is a capital element, but the money that is available to the budget, which I was describing earlier, is resource.

That will be a matter for discussion with Crown Estate Scotland regarding its requirements. Incidentally, I should put it on the record that it does a very good job and has turned things around. The Scottish Government has had a role, too. It has done pretty poorly from the Crown estate in the past, but the work that has been undertaken by Crown Estate Scotland and its use of its assets have led us to quite a transformation, which has been extremely helpful—not least in relation to the budget support that is now provided. That has been a journey from a very different position.

What I have set out is subject to approvals and procurement. There is a process that requires procurement to happen, and there are ifs and buts around that, but all being well, subject to approvals in procurement, we can see the delivery of the seven new small vessels between 2026 and 2028.

That is the plan. If there are any changes to that, we would, of course, bring that to the attention of the Parliament, but that is the intention. We will be able to provide updates as soon as possible after we have those key planks of the process in place. We will be happy to keep the Parliament updated.

Well, what I have set out—