Chamber and committees

I did ask about the budget—that was in my question.

That is great, thanks.

The good food nation plan is probably a tiny little blip on one of the buried budget lines. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the slow pace and opaque nature of the development process for that plan, and I am hearing how frustrated they are. The consultation closed five months ago on 22 April, and the analysis has still not been published. Stakeholders feel that it is disappointing that the Government is taking more than three years to produce a plan, especially one that they feel is, unfortunately, unambitious. How can the Government ensure that there is sufficient budget allocation to take that work forward at a faster pace? Can you give us clarity on the timetable today?

Thanks for that.

On access to information on the marine directorate’s budget and research programmes, we heard from stakeholders that there is a lack of detail and transparency. The Government previously told the committee that work is under way to review what information the marine directorate will proactively publish, saying:

“As for the point about transparency as a directorate, we are looking at what information we can more proactively publish ahead of time, so that it is there and can be accessed readily by stakeholders. That piece of work is under way.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 11 September 2024; c 36.]

Will you commit to publishing more detailed annual information on marine directorate budget spending and research activity?

I will go into a little more detail. One of the stakeholders at the round table was Open Seas. It made a written submission before the round table in which it raised a point about the marine fund’s payments of more than £500,000 to commercial subsidiaries of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to collect fisheries observer data. It noted a concern about the use of public funding because the Fishermen’s Federation is not purely a research organisation, the data has not yet been published, and the data could be collected more easily by REM, which could potentially influence the federation’s support for that policy. Finally, it notes that there is little transparency around how that large sum of money is being spent.

Are you able to address those points—they are quite detailed—or provide more information on the detail of the project costs at some point?

If you could update us on that, that would be great.

We have been hearing from a number of stakeholders about their concerns with the forestry grant scheme. We heard the Woodland Trust outline that there must be sufficient funding for forestry, peatland restoration, the nature restoration fund, agricultural environment schemes and the relevant agencies, including those that focus on skills development. It is my understanding that the recent 41 per cent cut to the forestry grant scheme budget is predicted to cause a significant fall from previous years in the amount of new woodland that will be created in 2024-25, and that it will be one of the biggest gaps between target and delivery. That cut is also undermining sectoral confidence.

How does the Scottish Government propose to respond to the view that cutting planting funding will reduce the possibility of the Scottish Government meeting its own annual targets?

Okay—thank you.

Abdool, do you have anything to add?

Abdool, do you have anything to add?

Yes. There is certainly a lot to think about.

That brings us to the end of our questions. I thank the witnesses for what has been an interesting and insightful discussion. It has been great to get some of your thoughts on what we can do better in Scotland and how we can learn from what is happening in England.

We previously agreed to take our next two items in private.