Chamber and committees

There have been calls for clarity around what the overall split between tiers 1 and 2 would be. We are still engaging with stakeholders on that, so I am not in a position to set that out at the moment. However, in what we announced earlier in the year, we set out that tiers 1 and 2 would make up 70 per cent of the future quantum of funding, with tiers 3 and 4 making up the remaining 30 per cent.

That is the starting point, and I am not going to predict the future. I certainly do not have in mind what the figure would change to if it was to change. It is really important that we start to implement the new tiers of the framework and see how it all operates.

The likes of tier 4 would help supplement that work. If people are baselining their business and undertaking, say, the soil tests and carbon audits, we want them to get support to work on that information. The tiers very much complement one another, and, as you have said, it is not a hierarchy.

The islands team works really closely with other departments. From the team’s establishment, it has been a case of reaching out and ensuring that they have that engagement. That will always be a work in progress, but I would like to think that the team is fairly well known now.

If the project board has just recently met, as George Burgess has said, then the announcement will be made imminently. Of course, I have not had that information yet, so I cannot tell the committee exactly when that will happen.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee in advance of the 2025-26 Scottish budget. As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government set out in her fiscal statement earlier this month, the Scottish Government faces a very challenging situation as we continue to manage our finances through the current financial year and look to set the Scottish budget for the forthcoming financial year. In the face of that challenge, my portfolio is playing a substantive and real role in helping the Government to achieve its four priorities.

We remain steadfast in our support for rural and island communities. Scotland’s rural and island economy is a major source of growth for Scotland, delivering an economic contribution that was worth £39 billion—26 per cent of Scotland’s total gross value added—in 2021. However, we know that communities across our rural and island areas face unique challenges, including a higher cost of living, which is why we are determined to ensure that those challenges are addressed through all our policies.

I am clear that the funding that is allocated to my portfolio is targeted at improving opportunities in Scotland’s rural, coastal and island communities and has a direct critical role in enabling communities to thrive. Such measures include investing more than £6.7 million in Scotland’s islands to support the on-going delivery of the national islands plan; supporting island communities through our islands cost crisis emergency fund; and continuing to support Scotland’s islands to become exemplars of carbon-neutral communities through our carbon-neutral islands programme.

We have a strong record of providing direct support to our marine sectors through the European maritime and fisheries fund and, since our exit from the European Union, our marine fund Scotland. We will shortly announce up to £14 million of marine fund Scotland funding for 2024-25, which will support projects to achieve an innovative and economically sustainable marine economy that delivers real benefits for Scotland’s coastal communities, reduces carbon emissions and protects the marine environment. That funding will build on grants totalling more than £40 million to more than 270 projects since 2021.

More broadly, in relation to the marine directorate’s budget, we continue to prioritise our significant statutory and regulatory functions in key commitment areas, including fisheries science, which continues to be a priority, with its funding being maintained at existing levels.

The read-through of scientific expertise into tangible outcomes for Scotland is clear when we consider the marine directorate’s work on international fisheries negotiations. Our scientific, compliance and policy functions collaborate very effectively to seek the best outcomes for Scotland, and that work brought in more than £600 million-worth of fishing opportunities last year.

In relation to our rural economy, the agriculture sector is key to Scotland’s wider economy. The rural affairs budget provides essential financial stability to the rural economy through the provision of our direct payments. In 2024-25, more than £600 million is being provided in on-going support for the rural sector. Early payments began to reach farmers and crofters from Wednesday 4 September. In total, the initial payments are worth approximately £243 million and are being paid to more than 11,500 businesses across Scotland.

Through the agricultural reform programme, we are continuing to support farmers and crofters to reduce emissions and deliver biodiversity improvements through greater uptake of key activities such as carbon and biodiversity audits and soil analysis. That will be key to supporting the transformation of farming and food production in Scotland so that we become a global leader in sustainable regenerative agriculture and support the industry to achieve its targets.

Nature restoration is also key to achieving those targets. This year, in the programme for government, we have committed to planting 10,000 hectares of trees, with more than 4,000 hectares being used for native broadleaf species.

As the committee will be aware, with there being no clarity on future funding levels from the United Kingdom Government or on the extent to which the funding will remain ring fenced, we are missing a key building block for the 2025-26 budget. However, together with my counterparts in the other devolved nations, we are hoping for a reset in the relationship with the UK Government, as we join together to press for a satisfactory multi-annual settlement to be set out in the UK spending review.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have.

In my opening remarks, I highlighted the different ways in which the marine directorate contributes to our fisheries. As I said, there have been very tangible outcomes for our fisheries industry, such as the fishing opportunities that we have secured over the past few years.

The directorate has been restructured so that it follows more of a portfolio approach, but it would probably be helpful if I passed over to Rebecca Hackett to provide more details.

There are quite a few points that I want to pick up in relation to you comments. Although I recognise some of the challenges that were outlined when the committee heard from some of our stakeholders in your evidence session, broadly speaking, we have quite a strong relationship with some of our stakeholders, and I hope that that came through in some of the evidence that you heard, too.

There is no doubt that the marine directorate, like other directorates across the Government, is under a huge amount of pressure. There is no shortage of work going on in the marine space, which adds to all that. There have been a number of changes in how we engage with stakeholders, and we have tried to put more formal structures in place to co-ordinate that. For example, in the work that we have done on the fisheries management and conservation group, we have set out terms of reference and put it on a more structured basis, which helps us to get a more strategic view and more engagement with the policies that we are looking to implement.

We have also undertaken work in relation to our regional inshore fisheries groups, which we will review to make sure that we have the right mechanisms in place to engage with our stakeholders in such a way that they can help us with the formulation and delivery of policy.

As we move forward, I think that the implementation of the marine science and innovation strategy, which was published at the start of the year, will help. I recognise what stakeholders said to the committee about data and evidence gaps, but, with the best will in the world, the marine directorate’s science department would never be able to resource all the work that is needed to fill those gaps or to fulfil all our science needs. Of course, as is the case in other directorates, we must try to prioritise that work as best we can.

The marine science and innovation strategy sets out the efforts that we are making to better collaborate with other academic institutions. There are some quite strong relationships across Scotland. In addition, we have appointed a chief scientific adviser for the marine directorate, who will help with the implementation part of that work.

I do not know whether Nuala Gormley has more information to add on the scientific elements.

Absolutely. Although I outlined that some specific responsibilities sit with the other cabinet secretary, I have a strong interest in marine issues. We have close collaboration across the different areas of policy, even though overall responsibility sits in different portfolios.

From a directorate perspective, given the way in which that portfolio work has been established, I am sure that Rebecca Hackett could comment more on how that is working overall—and, I hope, improving things.

There are a couple of different things in there. You referenced some of the different countries and their output. Obviously, other countries and other Administrations in the UK—where marine sits in their portfolio areas—all operate in a completely different way, so you are not necessarily comparing like with like when you make those comparisons. Obviously, CEFAS operates in a different way to the way that the science, evidence, data and digital department does in the marine directorate, where it does more work externally and receives more of its budget that way, rather than it all being funded by the UK Government. That department is funded in a different way.

The science department in the marine directorate is more focused on the evidence that we need to develop Scottish policy and the interests that we have there.

The committee has visited the marine lab, and I accept the points that are made about that. Of course, a number of short-term measures have been implemented there. I realise that the situation is not optimal, because we want it to be an attractive place to work and an environment where people want to come and work. It is also important to highlight that a longer-term piece of work is being developed in relation to that. The Scottish Government corporate team has put together a project board to look at potential longer-term options for the future of that site.

There is a strong level of interest in filling the vacancies that arise, so I still believe that it is an attractive place where people want to work. However, there is no doubt that more work needs to be done on the infrastructure in particular, and that is why the work that the project board will be taking forward is really important. Nuala, do you want to add anything else in relation to that?