Seòmar agus comataidhean

We engage with the public agencies and with Forestry and Land Scotland when we are having budget discussions, and I am not aware—and I have not been made aware—that there would be an impact on those wider services. The only impact would be on their ability to acquire land and plant trees.

Some of the longer-term work will look further at that. It is not just a case of patch, fix and move; it is about how we deliver an estate that is fit to deliver what we need and that is fit for the future and is sustainable in the longer term.

I will have to ask Iain Wallace what exact budget line that falls under, or I could potentially follow that up with the committee. I do not know whether that specific work is identified at that level in the budget—again, simply because that falls to another area—but I can follow up with the committee on that. I do not know whether Iain Wallace has that information today.

There are a few points in there. With regard to transparency, I go back to what I said regarding some of the other schemes that we talked about previously: the budget lines that we see as presented do not provide that level of detail, in my view, which can make it difficult for people who are looking at the budget to identify what spend is going where.

However, we made that commitment last year in relation to some of the budget lines, and the marine directorate is currently developing the business plans for how that funding will be allocated once the budget is—we hope—agreed and passed. We would be happy to follow up with the committee to provide a clearer picture if that would be helpful.

I also appreciate the difficulty with the fact that, as you highlighted, budget lines are coming from other portfolios. Of course, that is outwith our control; I am analysing my own budget lines. There is no deliberate intention there, but it is quite right that the funding is coming from the SG estates budget, because that area is part of the Scottish Government’s functions. Nevertheless, we will follow up with that information, so that it is made more clear and obvious to the committee where it should be focusing and what budget lines it should be looking at to see where that spend is going.

I would not agree with the comment about capacity and reputation. We can look at the work, particularly in marine science, that is undertaken through the directorate. In some of the negotiations that we have been through recently, we have delivered £540 million of fishing opportunities for the industry, and much of that work depends on the work that is undertaken by our scientists. We have 80 scientists working across 70 different International Council for the Exploration of the Sea working groups, and it is our scientists who lead on 20 different stock assessments within that, because our expertise and reputation in that area is recognised.

In addition, on science spend, in the current financial year, there was an increase of £1.2 million in the overall spend on science, because we recognise how important it is. A number of pieces of science work are being undertaken in the marine directorate. A couple of years ago, we published our science and innovation strategy. It is vital that we work with our partners, and the strategy is about how we can seek to collaborate better and utilise other expertise.

We now have in place the chief scientific adviser for marine. We have published a paper on areas of research interest, and the implementation plan for the science and innovation strategy is due to be published this year, too.

All of that shows that we are committed to investing in our science work and that we are delivering a lot of work in that area.

It may be helpful to talk about some of the projects that we are funding through that fund. We last published our blue economy outcomes a few years ago, and a key element of that is how we support new entrants in the fishing industry. We have funded, or put funding towards the cost of, vessels for fishermen, and some of that funding has gone to support some of our partners, including the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, in the work that they do. There has also been funding for Seafood Scotland, to help to deliver its programme of work, which has been vital. We allocated some funding towards that last year. There has been funding for the Scottish ocean cluster project as well.

I am happy to follow up on some of the key projects, to outline some of the outcomes that we are looking for. A key point is innovation, and another point is the need to tackle some of the issues around our coastline, such as marine litter. It is largely about helping our marine industries to innovate and tackle some of the challenges that we know exist. I am happy to follow up with more information on that.

For part of the financing, you are right, but part of the work that was being taken forward through that project was about looking at broader financing strategies. Some important projects have been delivered through the capital funding that we have had available in previous years, but we are now looking at where we can lever in that extra funding and what more can be achieved. As I said, I am happy to follow up with some of the specifics in relation to that.

Yes, if an issue was identified as a priority. There are several elements there. We can look at the funding that is currently available in relation to housing, which has been set out in the broader housing documents. We have the rural and islands housing plan and the action plan on the back of that, which is about looking at different models of delivery and at what works in different parts of Scotland and how we can best utilise and encourage that. The overall funding for that is projected to increase to about £37 million over the next few years. Wherever we can align those projects, we should do so. They should not—and they would not—be happening in isolation.

Ultimately, the national islands plan is about how all the parts of Government are delivering for our islands community. That is set out in some of the objectives in the plan, in relation to not only housing but transport and other areas.

I do not want anybody hanging in limbo when it concerns matters as serious as that. The budget has now been published—it was a bit later than anybody would have liked, of course, but we want to give people that security as early as possible. I am not sure whether that funding has been 100 per cent confirmed, but I will follow up and ensure that that is the case.

I am happy to follow up on that. My officials will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that some of the budget in that line has been transferred to another budget line for the Scottish rural network, in order to bring all the funding available for networking into the same place.

The rural cohesion budget line also sets out our portfolio’s contribution to the depopulation action plan. We have been funding community settlement officers. That has been a really positive initiative, and it is where that funding has tended to be allocated.

Unless I am corrected—and I am more than happy to follow up with more detail if I am wrong—I believe that that is where the decrease in that particular line has come from. There has been an adjustment, and the funding has been moved elsewhere.

I knew that it was under active discussion and that it had been a Government commitment for a number of years, so that element of it was not particularly a surprise.