Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is the thing. The situation is really difficult at the moment, and longer-term planning is not possible because we have annual budgets and allocations. That continues to be a particularly difficult issue, particularly for some of the schemes that we have run and funded.

The reason that we had the resource spending review and the capital spending review, even though they are not budgets in and of themselves, was to provide that overall envelope, although, of course, that can vary from year to year as we go through the annual budget-setting process. Within my portfolio, with regards to the islands funding in particular—I know that longer-term planning has been an issue and that there have been calls for us to look into multiyear allocations—we are trying to see how we can improve processes and give people as much warning as we can. Of course, that will, unfortunately, always depend on what the allocation is from year to year, but we are working to try to improve processes and to give clarity, where it is possible to do so.

Yes. As I outlined to the committee when I appeared previously, over £60 million worth of savings from the portfolio had gone forward at that time. The biggest part of that was the convergence funding. I outlined that in the letter that I sent to the committee about the budget as well. The £33 million was funding that we received unexpectedly, so we had not budgeted for that. That is part of the ring-fenced funding that we receive, so it has to come back to the portfolio in future years. It has not been returned for the 2023-24 financial year, but I will be discussing further with the Deputy First Minister when that money will be returned to the portfolio. It will be returned not for the coming financial year but in future years.

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.

No doubt, there are many challenges in finding the resource that we need to deal with that, which is why the uplift in funding will be critical. It is a really exciting time, but it is a really challenging time as well—there is no getting around that.

There is the expansion in offshore renewables—I am looking at Rachael Hamilton, because we attended an event with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, and we have talked about the spatial squeeze. We want to roll out the HPMA network as well. We might think that we have a huge marine resource and asset, but, when all those considerations are factored in, it becomes quite a cluttered landscape. We are trying to manage it as best we can through the work that we are doing on the blue economy vision and the focus that we have put on the outcomes there, as well as in the work that will be taken forward through the national marine plan. That is where the extra resource will be important in helping us to deal with all those issues.

Absolutely. One of the key elements that will make a difference and will really help us relates to the roll-out of remote electronic monitoring. The committee will, no doubt, be aware of our consultation on that. We are still going through the responses, and we will publish the outcome of that consultation and our response to it in due course. We talked about the roll-out of remote electronic monitoring and the roll-out of the vessel monitoring system, which we want to see across all vessels by the end of this parliamentary term. I will keep the committee updated on that as we publish that information. That extra intelligence is critical.

I do not know whether Iain Wallace wants to touch a bit more on the risk-based system. We can receive thousands of reports in a year about particular areas. From my experience of some of the cases that I am contacted about, people might see a vessel in an MPA, but that does not always indicate that illegal activity is taking place—it depends on the protections that are in place in that MPA. Sometimes, we receive reports, but what is happening on the ground can be different. Of course, there are occasions when that is most definitely not the case. I imagine that, if particular areas are at risk, that is where the marine protection vessels will be tasked with patrolling. We also have aerial surveillance, which helps with some of that.

I do not know whether Iain Wallace wants to go into any further detail or to expand on that.