Chamber and committees

I completely understand the concerns that stakeholders have expressed. We were disappointed with the overall planting rate for last year, which fell far short of our expected targets. I held the woodland creation summit last December to try to get to grips with what the key issues were that had led to the situation, to consider how we could address them and to examine how we could scale up planting to get closer to meeting some of the targets.

Notwithstanding the issue with planting rates, and the budget pressures that we are currently facing, particularly in relation to woodland grants—as you have highlighted, that overall budget is down by 40 per cent—the summit was vital in helping us identify the challenges. It gave us a lot to build on and highlighted a lot of work that we could do. Undoubtedly, though, the situation means that we would be unable to meet our planting targets for the current year.

It is really important that, from now on, we ensure that we can still plant trees and get as many in the ground as possible. At the time of the summit, we had a record number of approvals in the pipeline—it was more than 13,000 hectares-worth at that point; I think that the figure is closer to 14,000 hectares now. We want to ensure that we are fully utilising the budget that is available during the current financial year. We need to do that for next year’s budget, too, and I know that there have been discussions with partners in the sector on how we can best utilise that and keep the momentum going as best as we possibly can.

Overall, within that context, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are still doing a huge amount of planting. In Scotland, we are planting 62 per cent of the total figure for the UK. Therefore, although there is no getting away from the impact of the budget, it is important that we do not forget the real progress that we have made when it comes to developing the industries and the sector and increasing the rates of planting.

I am sorry—I can hear you, but I was not able to come off mute.

You have raised a really important point. I would, largely, echo what Ms McAllan has said, but I want to touch on a couple of pilot projects that are under way at the moment, which are key to ensuring that we get that investment right. We have talked many times before about how the level of public investment that we can make will never be enough to address the challenges that we are facing. Therefore, private investment will be critical. It is necessary to ensure that that is done in a responsible way and that communities see the benefit. That is really important.

There are a couple of pilots under way with NatureScot at the moment. One of those is a £2 billion private investment project that is centrally focused on the principles for responsible private investment that Ms McAllan talked about, and which she was responsible for bringing forward and implementing in her previous ministerial role. Our ensuring that we get that investment right from the start—that there is engagement with communities and that they see the benefit of it—is very much part of that process. I would be happy to follow that up with the committee and to provide more information on how the pilot is going, but I believe that it is operating quite well, at the moment.

There is also £3 million available at the moment as part of the pilot fund for the facility for investment ready nature in Scotland. Nearly 30 projects are under way as part of that and, again, the principles that I mentioned are very much at the forefront in order to make sure that we get the private investment right.

You are absolutely right in relation to where we want to be with land reform and what, ultimately, we want to see, which we are setting out in the goals. I am keen that any sort of investment aligns with our ultimate goals and visions, and with what we are trying to achieve.

Thank you—

Of course it will. As I highlighted in my previous response, it is a very busy directorate and a lot of work is always being undertaken, so we have to prioritise where the focus of that work needs to be. I talked earlier about the blue economy vision, embedding the outcomes that we want to see from that and that being a focus for our work.

When I was at the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee last week, I spoke about the science and innovation strategy, which is guiding how we prioritise our work in that area and where the key areas of focus will be. Obviously, we cannot undertake all the scientific research that we would ideally like to, because we have limited resource. We have two research vessels. Our overall spend on science is more than £20 million, and about £10.5 million of that is in relation to fisheries. The cost of the two research vessels is included in that, which equates to around £6.5 million of funding.

The science and innovation strategy is important, because it talks about how we can best utilise the academic and scientific research expertise that we have in Scotland, map the on-going work, improve how we co-ordinate and collaborate with different partners in Scotland, as well as internationally, and see where we can maximise the benefit of our work. We launched our science and innovation strategy in Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago, which is key in focusing scientific research and how we move that forward.

Scotland has a vast sea area, so enforcement and compliance in relation to our marine protected area network is of critical importance. We have 18 area offices, two surveillance aircraft, three marine protection vessels and two rigid inflatable boats, all of which must be funded. The total cost of that is around £30 million. It is a huge area to cover. I talked about the operational efficiencies that the marine directorate has been looking at, which are about trying to best focus and utilise our resources. In relation to enforcement and compliance, that has meant a greater focus on using intelligence and doing risk-based analysis before deploying vessels and aircraft.

The marine directorate’s way of working is being considered across the piece, which is how those savings have been identified, and it is also looking to maximise its income streams.

If AECS was not there, a lot of the activities that we would like to see would not take place. Farmers and crofters might not be able to undertake certain activities if the funding did not exist for that to happen, which is why it is such an important fund.

AECS will continue until such point as we have the future tiers of the framework in place.

As I have just outlined in my response to Kate Forbes, there will be changes to the budget lines that have been set out to show the overall switch, but this does not change the envelope. We had had the £15 million confirmed at the time the budget was published, but it was included as resource funding rather than capital. That is what I outlined to Kate Forbes. I can outline exactly in which budget lines you would expect to see changes.

Sorry, I—[Interruption.]

To clarify the point about the £61 million, the deferred funding is not a saving from 2024-25. That was from 2022-23 and 2023-24. If you remember back to when John Swinney was the finance secretary and he made the emergency budget review, that was when £33 million was announced, which was savings that had been taken. In her announcement in November, I think, the Deputy First Minister talked about the savings and the path to balance that we had to reach this year. We are waiting for that £61 million in savings to be returned to the portfolio; £15 million of it has been returned this year, but that leaves £46 million. As I said in my response to Kate Forbes, it has been confirmed that that is coming back to the portfolio, but the sequencing of that and when it happens is still to be discussed with the Deputy First Minister.

The fine that was paid initially came from our budget, as far as I am aware. I do not know whether George Burgess or Karen Morley would have the information as to specifically where it came from.