Chamber and committees

Could either the cabinet secretary or Nuala Gormley tell me how many publications were reported in 2022-23 from Marine Scotland science?

The committee has heard, cabinet secretary, that defunding the rural budget and realigning budgets to other areas has had a significant impact on supply chains for land managers and others who operate in rural areas. I give the example of the nature restoration funding, which was reprioritised to fund council pay deals earlier this year. Do you envisage the same thing happening next year with another pot of rural money? Can the Government understand the impact of that on the stakeholders that I have just mentioned?

Okay. Let us talk about the £46 million, then.

Yes, that is an important aspect, because it is a statutory requirement under, for example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, to acknowledge the impact of any budgetary considerations.

Do you think that, in general, there should be rural proofing for rural areas? After all, it would be easy for the Government to look at uncommitted spending, remove it and put it into, say, the nature restoration budget, which is something that will have an impact on rural communities. Farmers and people in rural communities are angry about the removal of the £46 million and the use of the nature restoration budget to pay for public sector pay increases. You say that there will be an impact assessment alongside the budget, but will it specifically address the removal of the £46 million and the nature restoration funding?

The way to look at this would be to consider another Scottish National Party policy—that is, to reduce child poverty. How do we know that, even if we are talking about uncommitted spend, its removal is not having a direct impact on rural communities and on child poverty? Do you, for example, make a comparison between rural areas—I was going to say the islands, too, but I suppose that you do look specifically at them—and the central belt? I am trying to work out how this budget is making a meaningful impact in rural areas—or, indeed, a negative impact. It is important that, when you are at the table with the rest of the Cabinet and are making your case, cabinet secretary, you can say—I am sorry to keep using the word “you”—that removing this money, even if it is uncommitted, is going to have a direct impact.

I want to touch briefly on the Government’s payment strategy. What research is being done to ensure that that strategy is future proofed and avoids any missed payments?

Just to be clear for the committee, are you saying that for a certain pot of funding—for, say, soil testing—there has been high uptake and, indeed, it has been oversubscribed?

Okay. I presume that the residual cash is allocated. Does it get reprioritised or does it roll over?

I want to follow up on the letter, cabinet secretary. You argued that the Bew funding was part of overall agricultural funding, which meant that it was brought in line with the budget and then applied to the ring-fenced funding. I know that we have been through this multiple times, with regard to £61 million being part of a saving. However, you also said that you are spending more. Do you mean the totals—£609.7 million, £620.7 million and a further £620.7 million—over the years?

I am not going to go into asking whether other portfolios were ring fenced, Mr Burgess.