Chamber and committees

Yes, your key priorities.

In relation to the overall budget, basically, the budget for sea fisheries has flatlined. There has been no real-terms increase compared with other parts of the marine directorate. You mentioned the route map, but there was a suggestion that it was based on the budget, rather than on what the industry needs. The committee has dealt with policies in relation to which issues have been raised about the data to back up those policies.

There have been struggles with the Clyde cod box and, more recently, with lobster and crab fisheries. Are you ensuring that the budget matches the ambitions that Nuala Gormley has just set out? Can that be achieved when the budget for sea fisheries is flatlining?

Cabinet secretary, I accept your apology for the lateness of the letter, but in some instances, sadly, it raises more questions than it answers. You outline the £620.7 million of ring-fenced money, but there is no indication of the Scottish Government’s contribution to the overall budget. It would be helpful to know that so that we can see the make-up of the portfolio budget.

I note that the letter says:

“the Bew review recommendations have not been fully implemented.”

Which recommendations have not been implemented?

I do not have that in front of me, but we have certainly heard witnesses suggest that the level of fines is not a deterrent.

It would be helpful to know if you are actively looking at the level of fines, cabinet secretary.

I just want to correct the record—the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee looked at the issue, rather than the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Thank you, cabinet secretary.

The next theme is access to information on the marine directorate’s budget and research programmes.

That is absolutely the point that I was making.

I understand that, but the letter does not suggest that. It says that a total of £61.1 million was given up from within the ring-fenced budget. The letter does not suggest that any of the savings that were made came from the top-up funding from the Scottish Government. We need to look into that a little more deeply, although this may not be the time to do it, given the time constraints. The committee may have further questions.

Before we move on from this line of questioning, I have a question about your position on future discussions with the UK Government on funding. What will be your ask of the UK Government in your discussions and negotiations with it?

That should perhaps have been your first question. If you wish to address the question on the budget, that is fine.

That is most helpful.

We move to formal consideration of the instrument. As no member has any further comments, does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations on it?

Members indicated agreement.