Seòmar agus comataidhean

To focus on science, we had, as I said, an increase to the science budget last year, but it is always going to be difficult. Our marine area is vast, which is why the work that we are taking forward through our science and innovation strategy is so important, as is the work that Iain Wallace touched on with regard to the areas of research interest. We recognise that we have to collaborate with others in the development of that work and how we take it forward.

Our scientists already do incredible work. I have talked about some of the involvement with ICES, and we see a direct impact from that work, because it all helps to bring in the funding and the opportunities for our fishermen that we see as a result of the coastal states negotiations.

It is about how we best utilise the resource that we have and about working with others, because we have significant areas of expertise across Scotland. I acknowledge Beatrice Wishart’s point about UHI Shetland; there are also organisations such as MASTS and the Scottish Association for Marine Science with which we want to collaborate. The implementation work that is due to come forward this year in relation to the science and innovation strategy will be critical for putting that into practice.

We did increase the science resource last year, but I appreciate the point. I hope that you have at least seen the work that we are doing towards that. We are, I hope, making some progress in that regard and in trying to identify new opportunities for our fishermen.

Overall, when we consider the marine directorate’s budget, it is the same situation as with other areas across Government: we are striving for efficiency while still trying to deliver on our overall objectives. There are savings within that as a result of some of the investments that have been made.

The marine directorate is a good example of where new technology has been utilised in a way that costs us less overall but provides us with better data and information. For example, we have been investing in remotely piloted aircraft systems, as being able to utilise that technology helps with overall compliance and increases our capabilities at sea. We have previously discussed with the committee the aircraft that have been utilised, and we have now entered into a contract for those aircraft that is saving us a lot of money while maintaining the overall resource, which is vital for compliance. We have also been investing in remote electronic monitoring and in vessel monitoring systems. All of that is helping with the wider data picture, which ultimately enables us to do more.

There are the investments that we have made, and there will be the continuing investments in the new marine vessels that are coming down the track. Those investments can ultimately help us to save money, which is a good thing. Of course, we recognise how vital science is—we increased the resource for the science budget last year, and the business plans are being developed for this year. As I outlined previously, I am happy to provide more detail on the allocations once that work has been finalised.

I am happy to do that.

There has been an overall reduction in the capital funding that is being allocated to the islands programme and the carbon neutral islands project. There has been an increase in the resource that is being made available to the islands programme—there is a £3.75 million capital allocation for the islands programme this year as well as £2.5 million being available in resource. That is an uplift in resource funding in comparison with what was in the budget for that last year. However, there is only resource funding available for the carbon neutral islands project. Unfortunately, that highlights some of the difficult decisions that we have had to make across the portfolio in relation to capital spend. Ultimately, I think that the allocation will help to continue to deliver the pipeline of projects that have been developed over the course of the islands programme. Even though there is no specific capital identified against the overall carbon neutral islands project, any specific projects coming through that would be able to access the capital that is there for the islands programme, too.

With regard to the overall delivery of the national islands plan, we need to look more broadly, rather than simply looking through the narrow prism of my portfolio. Some of the key objectives that have been set out in the plan, including the overarching objective around how we retain and increase populations in our island communities, relate to other key areas across Government. For example, investments are made through the transport and housing portfolios. In announcing the budget last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government touched on the islands accelerator projector for our island authorities, which is about capital investment, and there is investment in things such as fixed links, which are also identified in the national islands plan.

I would say that, for the islands programme more generally, the work that has been on-going for a number of years now with the Scottish Futures Trust, which has been leading that work and that engagement with local authorities, has led to a strong pipeline of projects being developed. The islands accelerator model, too, offers quite an exciting opportunity when it comes to future models of funding to deliver the sort of big capital infrastructure that could be so important for our islands.

However, it is important that we continue to build on the good work that has been done so far. Of course, we are working with a number of different partners on the carbon neutral islands project; there is also access to other schemes, such as the community and renewable energy scheme; and there are area-based schemes that we can work with, as appropriate. I see us continuing to deliver on the good work that we believe has been started through the project.

Absolutely. As I said in response to Ariane Burgess, transport and housing are two of the most critical areas when it comes to delivering on the national islands plan objectives. Ultimately, it is all about ensuring that we have that basic infrastructure if we want people to come to, and remain on, our islands. The investment that we are seeing through transport will, I think, be critical to advancing the implementation of the new national islands plan. Indeed, one of its strategic objectives is improved connectivity.

I should also make it clear that the national islands plan seeks not to replicate other work that has already been published, such as the islands connectivity plan, but to build on what has already been done. I would also point to a number of different initiatives that have been announced in the budget, such as the removal of peak fares and the bus fare cap, and some of the capital investment that has been made in some of our islands will help to deliver on the objectives that have been set out.

Some of the headings for the budget lines do not do justice to what sits underneath them and what they actually fund. For example, the funding for the Scottish rural network comes under the heading “Technical Assistance”, but I do not think that you would necessarily look at those words and associate them with the Scottish rural network.

I am more than happy to provide more information on some of those areas, the lines that sit underneath them and where the funding goes. After all, we fund some really good initiatives, and it is really good to emphasise that.

First of all, I disagree with your assessment. Those of us who took part in the consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill—or the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, as it now is—will know that Ross Greer lodged amendments on the matter. Certain areas needed to be worked out, but it was a commitment that had been made between the Government and the Green Party. Discussions on the matter had been going on for a number of years, and, of course, the measure was announced in the budget last week.

It is important to point out some of the critical details of the change. The budget document sets out that shootings in deer forests will be excluded from eligibility for the small business bonus scheme relief and the fresh start relief. However, there are exceptions, including

“where a) shooting rights are exercised solely for the purposes of deer management, including to prevent damage to woodland or to agricultural production, environmental management or vermin control, b) crofts and c) all forms of agricultural and small landholding tenancies, leases for new entrants, and leases agreed for environmental purposes.”

That is still undergoing scrutiny at the moment, but it is important to highlight some of the exceptions.

We were in discussions about it over the course of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, and a number of pieces of work had been undertaken. I would have to go back and look at the exact ins and outs of that, but there was close working between portfolios on the response to the amendments to that legislation and the engagement that took place. We wanted to make sure that any exemptions or changes to the relief would not harm agriculture, family farms or crofts, because that is not the intention of the changes that have been made to the scheme.

If you would like to write to me or the minister to highlight the examples that you have just given, I am more than happy with that. As I say, there will be on-going engagement and those discussions will continue.

The change has been under consideration for a number of years, and discussions were held and commitments were made during the passage of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. We discussed when any changes could be brought into force and what discussions about them would take place.