Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are absolutely right, and we recognise that as an area that needs focus and attention. I do not know whether the committee is aware of the UK task force that has been established to consider woodland creation, in which the different Administrations come together to talk about the work that is taking place, about where it makes sense for us to work together and about whether there are areas where we could consider collaboration. Skills is one of the key areas, and you are absolutely right to focus on that.

Around the start of last year, I think, I hosted a woodland creation summit at which a mix of stakeholders from industry as well as from ENGOs considered the key challenges and how we could work together to tackle them. It was a really productive session and a lot of actions were taken on the back of it. Work is now being undertaken to see how we can encourage people to consider forestry as a career of choice, because there is no doubt that we are going to need the skills.

We have a number of working groups, and the industry leadership group is bringing together another part of the sector, so I offer the assurance that a lot of work is under way to consider the matter. I will meet the chief forester in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss the plans and the key areas of focus. As I have said in previous responses, I hope that we are on that positive trajectory. I recognise that there is work to do in all areas—in woodland creation, on the timber and production side of things and, importantly, on skills—but we are taking action in each of those areas.

I hope so. I hope that I can get us back on track and on to a positive trajectory. I have not shied away from—indeed, I have very much confronted—the challenges that last year’s budget presented, particularly in relation to forestry, but we have heard completely what stakeholders have said to us about that.

We must also consider what will be deliverable over the course of the coming year. There would be nothing to gain from massively increasing the budget—if that were possible—if the money was then not spent because the projects were not there. We must be careful about the allocations, because we all want to see them fully utilised.

I realise that confidence has been dented. We want to repair and build it again, and I believe that the budget that we have before us is a step in the right direction.

The budget for NatureScot does not fall within my portfolio, and I do not have overall responsibility for the agency, so I am not too clear what the implications would be. As I mentioned, we provide funding to NatureScot through the farming with nature programme. The funding would be provided specifically to carry out that work, if it is to go ahead. It is hard for me to provide more detail as to exactly what that would mean for NatureScot, because I have not had discussions on that with it.

You have raised a number of hugely important points, and there are a few things that I want to touch on.

The presentation of the figures has not helped in any way. What looks like an overall budget cut is based on the budget revision. When you compare it with the original 2024-25 budget as it was published, you see that there has been a 1 per cent increase in the funding—I want to be clear on that point. It is more of a presentational issue, because of the changes in the way that the budget has been presented.

I visited Aberdeen recently to see the marine directorate—I have visited it previously—and I understand the committee’s concerns about the site in Aberdeen. The directorate carries out vital functions for us in relation to science, compliance, enforcement and a number of different areas, as well as all the work that is being undertaken in relation to the marine environment. I believe that the directorate undertakes that role very well, and we are continuing to invest in the marine directorate as a whole.

I will touch on some of the particular issues that you raised. In the pre-budget committee evidence, we covered in some detail committee members’ concerns about the estate in Aberdeen. At that time, I outlined the establishment of a project board to look at short-term measures for some of the issues at the site as well as at the medium-term and longer-term plans. That work is still very much under way.

It is important to highlight that, as challenging as the estate in Aberdeen is, there has been significant investment over the past few years. Around £9 million has been spent on the estate, but further work is planned over the course of the coming year as we work towards longer-term solutions on the site. I listened carefully to the evidence that the committee received and to the concerns from a variety of stakeholders, and we are continuing to invest in the marine directorate because of the vital functions that it undertakes.

We seek to maximise income from those areas where we can. I do not have specific figures on that in front of me. Iain, do you have that information to hand?

We have an overall allocation for the marine directorate and there are different budget lines within that for the initial allocations. Iain Wallace will be able to give more detail, but at the moment there are indicative allocations, which are the starting point for business planning to look at the key priorities and decide where resources can best be placed. As I have said, we will be happy to provide the committee with further information about the internal allocations across each of the portfolios within the marine directorate if that would be helpful.

We have listened to those concerns, and we have shown that we have responded to them. Can we solve all problems that have been identified for all rivers? Potentially not, but, as we have highlighted, we have changed assessments where we have had that information or where the methodology or the data that we have received has been queried. That shows that we do listen and that we do respond.

On your second point, I think that there is no way that I could commit to that without getting legal advice or seeing what resource and so on would be required. Also, what would be the basis for doing that? If the instrument were to be annulled, would the basis of the information and my advice from officials change? I do not believe so. We could just end up in a similar position. I am concerned about the timescales; they are increasingly tight, and I would be concerned that we would not be able to do this in time.

I am sorry, convener, but can you remind me of your first question? Oh yes—it was about Jackie Baillie and the concerns of her constituents. Jackie Baillie has written to me on behalf of the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association, and I, of course, take that correspondence seriously, just as I take all the correspondence that I receive seriously and consider the points that are raised before issuing any response. I know that officials have engaged directly with the association, too, which I think shows that we are engaging and listening.

I ask officials to comment on some of those points, because they have more of the detailed information.

You have touched on a really important point, particularly in relation to the River Annan. You are absolutely right about what Fisheries Management Scotland has said. If the motion to annul was passed, there would be a big economic impact, particularly on that area, because it would mean that the early season would be unlawful, which would have a significant impact. That is another vital reason why the regulations need to proceed. I hope that the motion to annul is not supported today.