Official Report 804KB pdf
Our next item of business is evidence from the Scottish Government on its budget for 2025-26. I welcome back Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, who is supported by, from the Scottish Government, George Burgess, director of agriculture and rural economy; Helen Carter, who is joint head of finance in the agriculture and rural economy directorate; and Iain Wallace, director of marine.
The cabinet secretary is attending the meeting remotely, and we are disappointed not to have the officials in the room—they, too, are attending remotely—given how long the appointment has been in the diary and the importance of the agenda item.
I remind everybody that we have approximately two hours for this part of the meeting. I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement.
Thank you, convener. When I attended the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny session in September, I set out my priorities for my portfolio. I am pleased to come back today to outline how the 2025-26 Scottish budget, which was presented to the Parliament in December, will help to deliver on those priorities within the wider context of the Government’s priorities.
I believe that this is a budget for delivery. It directly addresses the issues that people are concerned about. It is a budget for hope that builds on the positive change that we are delivering for Scotland by helping to create more jobs and putting more money in people’s pockets. The budget will also protect and build on the substantial investment that the Government has already delivered for the people of Scotland.
The budget focuses resource across the four key priorities that are set out in the programme for government: eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency, and ensuring high-quality and sustainable public services. However, the budget is also set against the continued and unprecedented challenges for public finances. The Government has been clear that the extent of those challenges will not be addressed in a single year. The UK autumn budget was a step in the right direction, but although the additional funding that has been received is welcome, the block grant position represents just a 1 per cent real-terms increase in resource. Although there is a 7 per cent real-terms increase for capital, the projected gap between forecast funding and planned spending is growing.
Despite that challenge, the budget will invest more than £1 billion in 2025-26 in the rural affairs, land reform and islands portfolio. In investing more than £660 million in support for agriculture, it will continue to provide Scotland’s farmers, crofters and land managers with the most generous package of direct support in the UK. While the UK Government has removed its ring-fenced support for agriculture, we have continued to apply that to the funding received in the block grant.
The budget returns £20 million to the RALRI budget as additional funding to support transformation and reform in Scotland’s farming and food production industry, as was pledged to the sector, and it commits to returning the remaining deferred funding in 2026-27.
More than £150 million in funding is committed to ensuring that our land and forests will help to tackle climate change, protect nature and support green jobs, skills and businesses.
We also want to support our island communities to be resilient and successful. More than £9 million will go directly to where it is most needed to help us to meet the ambitions that are outlined in our national islands plan.
In addition, we will continue to target our marine budget towards our responsibilities for the integrated management of Scotland’s seas.
My priorities are clear. The budget that is allocated to my portfolio will continue to make a vital difference to our coastal, rural and island economies. I look forward to discussing some of those issues with the committee today.
I will kick off the questions. You suggested that the budget is a lot of things, but you did not suggest that it is a budget of disappointment. As cabinet secretary, you have failed to increase the budget, as is the case in every other sector. Despite the 1 per cent increase in revenue funding and the 7 per cent increase in capital funding, we are seeing a more than 3 per cent decrease in funding for your portfolio. To call it a budget of disappointment is probably to underestimate what people in forestry, marine and agriculture are thinking.
In our report on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, we called on the Government to ensure that multiyear ring-fenced funding would be provided, but, now that the ring-fenced element has been removed from the UK block grant, can you set out exactly how the Scottish Government will provide certainty to farmers and crofters?
10:45
Yes, I would be happy to, convener. First of all, though, I want to address your initial comments. If you are basing them on some of the information that has been provided by the Scottish Parliament information centre on the budget, I have to say that I disagree with the figures as they have been presented. I should point out that, if you are making comparisons with other portfolios, the figures do not take account of in-year transfers and changes to the portfolio budget as a result of our switching from resource to capital funding. Moreover, they do not take into consideration our capital funding or the climate package funding of £150 million, some of which will be direct funding to the portfolio.
It is really important for those things to be taken into account. Yes, resource overall has decreased by 2.6 per cent in real terms, but, when we combine that with the 19.7 per cent real-terms increase in capital, we will see a real-terms increase on last year’s budget of 0.3 per cent, which equates to a 2.7 per cent increase in cash terms. It is important that I clarify that, first and foremost.
There is no doubt that difficult choices have still had to be made right across Government. With regard to the agriculture budget, which you mentioned, and particularly the request for multiyear settlements, we were seriously concerned about the decisions taken by the UK Government, such as the removal of ring fencing and, indeed, the Barnettising of the funding coming to Scotland, which takes no account of our overall land size. Previously, we received around 17 per cent of the overall budget, so we had serious concerns about what that would mean for us.
I appreciate that calls have been made for multiyear funding. The Government would very much like to give that multiyear certainty and clarity, but that is not what we have been given; instead, we have just been given an annual settlement. Of course, there is a spending review coming up, and, if that were to result in more multiyear certainty, I would look to provide the same as soon as we were in a position to do so.
As I have highlighted in my comments—and, indeed, as the First Minister has said in his own statements on ring fencing—the funding from the UK Government has been passed on in full to agriculture. We have, of course, provided additional funding, too. I should also highlight that it was the £620.7 million that was baselined into the budget for the coming year.
I am still concerned about the fact that you continue to talk about ring-fenced funding, because the Scottish Government is now totally responsible for budget allocation. No longer can it say that its rural funding is dependent on ring-fenced money coming from Westminster. We have seen a record increase in the block grant; indeed, I think that only once since devolution has the block grant decreased in real terms. The question remains: we are going to have a multiyear rural support plan, but is it not the case that the only way that you can expect anybody to have any confidence in that plan is by having multiyear funding?
It would be completely irresponsible of me to commit to funding that I do not yet have. As I have said, the UK Government is expected to outline what funding could look like over a three-year period. Of course, we would very much welcome such a multiyear settlement, but it would be irresponsible of me to commit to a multiyear funding package when I do not yet have assurance of the moneys that I will be receiving from the UK Government.
I call Tim Eagle, with our next questions.
Can I ask a question on the back of that one, convener?
Certainly.
Thank you for those comments, cabinet secretary. On multiyear funding, I have spoken to a number of bodies about the issue and I know that it was a massive ask, not least from the National Farmers Union Scotland. Can you not just put in a caveat?
You are absolutely right in saying that, if you are going to have a five-year or seven-year—whatever it will be—ask of the agriculture industry in the rural support plan, we need to be protected as we move forward with that. Is there a reason why you could not say, “The Scottish Government will promise to deliver this funding for five years, with the caveat that we get the money from the United Kingdom Government”?
I absolutely appreciate that call from stakeholders, which I hear regularly during my engagement with them, but I believe that it would be irresponsible of me to say that we are committing to multiyear funding. I appreciate your suggestion about providing a caveat to that, but I hope that that is what I am trying to set out and to make clear.
During the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, I said that, if we were in a position to offer multiyear funding, we would. As well as helping with Government planning, knowing what funding they have as they plan ahead has wider benefits for the industry, our producers and our stakeholders across the portfolio. Until we have that assurance and we know what funding will be received from the UK Government, I will not be in a position to make that commitment. However, I hope that the position will change.
The convener referred to a cut in the rural portfolio budget. According to the graph on page 4 of the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, it looks as though there is a clear cut to the rural portfolio. You laid out a few things that suggested that it was not a cut. Has what you said been put in writing to the committee? I could not write down everything that you said. If you have not—
I would be happy to—
Apologies, I did not mean to interrupt you.
That is fine.
I would be happy to follow that up and to set out in writing the figures that I outlined to the convener.
Thank you.
On the wider context of the tier 1 and tier 2 funding, I can see that that funding has not changed very much in eight or nine years. If we take inflation into account, which is what farmers have faced on the ground, the £620 million—I think that it is £682 million this year—should probably be about £50 million to £70 million higher. A discussion needs to be had about how the tier 1 and tier 2 payments will increase. It would be great if you could touch on that.
My main question is about the iron-clad commitment that John Swinney made to return the £46 million. A commitment has been made to do that over two years, although we thought that it would be done in one year. Since the budget has been announced, what has the department done to progress that? What will the agricultural transformation fund look like?
I want to make sure that I cover all the points that you have raised. On the budget that is available for what would equate to the pillar 1 support that we provide by means of direct payments, you are absolutely right that we have been at that figure for a number of years. The £620 million is the baseline that we received from the UK Government. When you consider what that would be worth, it works out as a 10.4 per cent decrease in what the payment should be, as we should be receiving just under £700 million.
That brings me to an outstanding recommendation from the Bew review, which was for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to engage in a conversation to discuss intra-UK allocations of that spend. We wrote to the previous UK Government and we have written to the current UK Government to ask for that discussion to take place, because we still need to have that discussion in order to ensure that we get our fair share of funding. As yet, we have not had a response to those calls. It is vital that we have a discussion about what fair funding looks like, because, when we consider Scotland’s land mass and what we are able to do for food production, climate and nature, I think that we are entitled to a wider share of any UK land-based funding.
Could you remind me of your second question?
It was about the agricultural transformation fund. It would be nice to understand why you have decided to award the £46 million over two years rather than one year. Why have you put that money into the agricultural transformation fund? Has any work been done on that? What will the agricultural transformation fund look like?
Thank you for clarifying that, and I am sorry that I did not respond to that question the first time.
You are absolutely right about the agricultural transformation fund. There have been a number of asks from the industry on what that funding could be used for. It was important that we had those discussions with industry to see how that funding could best be allocated and used.
It is also important that that money is additional. Our greatest requirement has been for capital funding, which is why it is capital funding. It could have all come back in one year, but it is important that we are able to spend that funding, so the lion’s share of it will be returned next year. That is positive, because it enables us to fully utilise the funding within a year, knowing that there will be a return of that funding next year as well, depending on what schemes we are looking at.
There have been some suggestions. I will list some areas that I am keen that we look at, on which we are undertaking work at pace or that we have heard about from our stakeholders. There is concern that we have not had a food processing, marketing and co-operation grant for a number of years because of the significant constraint that we have had on our capital budget. Are there options for that? What can we do for the next generation—new entrants to farming? Can we provide them with capital support that could be helpful?
I am afraid that, at the moment, I do not have cast-iron plans for how that funding will be spent, but I would be more than happy to keep the committee informed when we know how the agricultural transformation fund as a whole is intended to be utilised.
Do you have a timeline for that? Obviously, there is still a bit of work to go, but when do you hope that the scheme will kick off?
Ideally, we want to have the plans for that in place as soon as possible, because we want to have the funds up and running so that people can apply early in the financial year. We appreciate that, if there were schemes for which people needed, say, planning permission, that would take time, so the earlier we are able to say what will and will not form part of the schemes, the earlier people can apply and we can ensure that we use that money.
We are working at pace to see, first of all, what the biggest requirement is but also what is deliverable within that timeframe. I am more than happy to keep the committee updated on that, because I appreciate the interest that there will be in those capital funds.
Obviously, the money that we are talking about was the fair share that we got from the last Bew review discussions. I would be very supportive of any discussion with the UK Government about a fair share for Scotland, but I hope that the Scottish Government will ensure that that stays in the farming portfolio.
Yes.
Mr Burgess has indicated that he wishes to come in.
To respond to Mr Eagle’s initial question about what work is being done, a meeting is going on right now among my officials to frame advice to the cabinet secretary on the matter. She has outlined a number of different areas that might deserve additional funding. We need to look at whether we use some of our existing grant mechanisms or create new ones and how we deliver support for the food processing sector. I give an assurance that a lot of work is being done on exactly that question so that we can make decisions and give an indication to the sector as soon as we possibly can.
On the split of funding between the next financial year and the year after, I do not want to put words into its mouth, but the NFUS’s reaction to the larger sum of money being available in the second year has been positive, not least because that will help businesses to plan. The budget document gives the certainty that that money is coming back, so it helps businesses to plan for that.
Thank you, Mr Burgess.
At the moment, there is a lot of talk in Europe about bureaucracy, red tape and the depth of the application process. I suppose that I want to make a shout-out. I ask you to consider ensuring that, whatever grant mechanism you come up with, the application process is not a very complicated one that new entrants have to spend thousands of pounds in consultants on in order to access the grant.
I see that George Burgess is nodding, and I am nodding as well, because we are very cognisant of that. We do not want to make it too onerous for people to apply to the scheme, let alone for us to administer it. I completely appreciate your point.
I will ask about the 75 per cent funding cut in the national test programme, which is occurring in the year in which the Government wants to introduce part of the whole-farm plan. Will you explain the emphasis on increasing uptake at a time when there is a budgetary cut?
11:00
I am happy to do that. I will break down the overall funding that is available in the agriculture reform programme. I think that the delivery costs of the programme are staying at the same level, which is £5 million. On the national test programme, importantly, we now have capital available over the course of the year contributing to that. Previously, when we have had higher amounts allocated to the national test programme, we have not been able to fully utilise that funding.
In previous meetings, we have talked about the level of claims that have come through for the preparing for sustainable farming—PSF—scheme. We have allocated an amount that we believe will be fully utilised by the claims that are coming through. In a year in which we will make some requirements for the whole-farm plan mandatory, such as those on carbon audits, soil sampling analysis and animal health and welfare plans, it is important that we continue to provide support for that. That is a reflection of the greater level of spend that we have been able to undertake over the past few years.
It is important that funding is available for those who have two or three plans to put in place, as there are costs involved in that. I echo Tim Eagle’s point that plans cost money.
You are absolutely right. Obviously, the situation in the first year was disappointing. In one of my appearances at the committee to discuss the budget, I think that I said that we had seen a low level of claims initially. I understand that it is a new scheme and that it is very much demand led. However, over the past few years, demand has gradually increased as more people have become aware of the scheme and as we are approaching the point at which some of the requirements of the whole-farm plan will become mandatory. I completely agree with your point. It is really important that we continue to provide support, and we have allocated funding for that in the coming year. The trajectory that we have seen has been positive.
The number of claims that we are seeing this year is probably not as high as the number that we saw last year, but we still have a couple of months to go. In the final period in the claims window, there is always a large uptick in the number of people processing their claims.
I have a question on the back of that. You talked about the PSF scheme, which has a carbon audit element. There is also carbon audit funding through the farm advisory service. It is my understanding that the PSF scheme was not fully committed the last time round. Will you give us clarification on whether that scheme is likely to reopen and, if so, when? Also, the farm advisory service scheme was paused in September 2024. Is that likely to reopen or is it permanently closed?
The year 2024-25 was due to be the last one in which we offered support for carbon audits and soil sampling, but I am keen that that continues in the coming year, given that some of the audits will become mandatory. I will look to confirm further details of that in due course. I am not in a position to say exactly when that will reopen or relaunch, but that is what we are considering for the coming year.
You are right in relation to the carbon audits that the farm advisory service was offering, but we also had that avenue available through the PSF scheme, and I believe that people were being redirected to that.
I do not know whether George Burgess has more information on what exactly will be available through FAS next year. That has been part of the offering in previous financial years, and I would expect that to be the case this time round, but perhaps George has further information.
I think that we expect a similar level of funding to be available for FAS. As the cabinet secretary said, the fact that the carbon audit stream from FAS had to close in September, as has happened in previous years, has not meant that farmers were unable to get support; it is just that the support has instead been delivered through preparing for sustainable farming. PSF closed at the end of December, as it normally does. As the cabinet secretary said, farmers still have until late February to come in with claims for that, and the intention is to reopen PSF so that businesses can claim again. During the past few years, we have seen a sort of hockey stick curve, with relatively low claims being made in the early part of the year and a big peak towards the end of the year.
There will certainly be a big peak if farmers feel that the scheme is going to close at the end of February and not reopen. For clarification, it is likely that the PSF will reopen, although we are still waiting for clarification about when that will happen, and carbon audit funding will not be available through FAS—is that correct?
It is not available at the moment, but, as George Burgess said, we are providing FAS with a slight increase in funding during the coming financial year, so I expect that that will still be the offering. It is my intention to run the PSF scheme in the coming year, but I will update the committee when I have more details on that.
I want to ask about the soil sampling part of the national test programme. It is good to hear that there is more uptake, but I am aware that not everyone is sampling their soil. I have become aware that we might need something like a pathway for people who are beginning; there are other people who are much deeper into soil sampling. What support will there be for that? As you know, we amended the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill to recognise that we need to support farmers to look at soil biology. Will that come into the national test programme, or will it be part of the direction of travel within the whole-farm plans?
You raise some important points. As you say, during the passage of the bill, we talked about the importance of soil health and soil biology, and some amendments recognised that. Nevertheless, there are no plans to extend what is available through PSF at the moment. We are focusing on the core audits that are currently available, and I do not expect that to change dramatically if we continue the scheme in the coming year. However, the on-going work and support is important, and we have touched on that in some of our previous discussions. It is all very well to undertake the analysis when it comes to carbon audits, but the work that is undertaken afterwards and the advice that is made available are important.
We are not directly supporting that through the funding schemes that we have available, but, as we look to implement the future tiers of the support framework and the continuous learning and development that we talked about during the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, that will feature heavily and it will be really important.
Before I ask my question about agri-environment schemes, it occurs to me that we were briefly talking about multi-annual funding. If the UK Government committed to multi-annual funding, which is what we had before our unfortunate exit from the European Union, would that make it easier for you to commit to it?
Yes, it would, because we would have the security of knowing what we were going to receive and when. That would enable us to do it. If we had a multi-annual commitment, we would be in a better position to look at that.
Thank you for clarifying that. I am interested in exploring the budget lines on agri-environment schemes. I think that I am correct in saying that the Government wants to support active farming, sustainable food production and the promotion of food security. Will you tell me about the budget allocation plans to support farmers, crofters and land managers with regard to agri-environment schemes?
I know that there are a lot of different schemes out there. You have just talked about soil sampling, so I would be interested in hearing about the budget for that.
Sometimes, how the budget is set out does not necessarily help, because it does not always cover the full extent of a scheme when it is under a more general heading and a number of different schemes are within it. The biggest element of funding is what we pay through the basic payments scheme and greening, which now have their own conditions attached through voluntary coupled support.
However, one of our key schemes, which you rightly mentioned, is the agri-environment climate scheme. It is probably the most key of the schemes that help us to achieve what we are trying to do with food production and working with the land in a way that also works for climate and nature. It is important to point out that, when it comes to the way that the funding for that is presented in the budget, it looks as though a fairly small capital element is allocated to the AECS scheme this year; however, as I touched on, a climate change fund is available, of which some has been allocated to AECS, so the full AECS funding is not listed in the RALRI budget. That other element falls within the net zero budget line; we are due to receive an extra £4.15 million, I think, in capital, to support the AECS scheme for the coming year. That would enable us to bundle the eligible applications that we received for last year’s round as well as fund the five-year contracts on which AECS runs, including all our previous contracts.
However, that is by no means our only scheme for doing that. Last year, we also used the agricultural transformation fund to support AECS, to help businesses on their way to adhering to the water environment regulations that will come into force at the start of next year. That involved slurry storage, irrigation lagoons and, a couple of years ago, slurry spreading equipment.
Within the business development line of the budget, too, we have a number of schemes—for example, the knowledge transfer and innovation fund, as well as a host of others—that people can apply to. Such funds are important in supporting and encouraging the innovation that we want in farming and crofting. Our key fund for achieving all our outcomes is probably the AECS, but it is important to point out the others.
Another thing that I have so far neglected to mention is the funding that we provide to NatureScot, which is helping us to pilot different approaches. Over the past year, we have supported its farming with nature programme, which has been piloting biodiversity audit and the app that is being considered. It has also been looking at piloting an outcomes-based approach for farming. We have provided funding to enable it to undertake that work for us, which has proved vital. Especially for biodiversity auditing, having such tools available is important.
I have a final quick question. You have described lots of different schemes. I assume that some schemes might end and others might come on board because of innovation and farming practices that are wide ranging—applying to beef, sheep and dairy, for instance, as well as arable. Is there a schematic of what is out there that we could see? That would help us to understand the diversity of the schemes that are available.
Yes, I would be happy to set that out for the committee and show what will be available. On top of that, as you were speaking, I was reminded that we also provide funding for the Scottish dairy growth board. That is another example. We have a number of different funding schemes to help industry both directly and indirectly. I would be happy to set that out for the committee to provide transparency.
I have a quick practical point, cabinet secretary, for confirmation about the AECS. One of the slight barriers to accessing the scheme that I have heard of in the past is capital costs for things such as fencing, for example, if you want to manage an area of ground for grazing grass that is, at the moment, one big field. Is there an ability to access capital works, if needed, in this year’s application process?
We have not as yet opened the round for the coming year, and we are considering that at the moment. Over the past couple of years, we have had to have more restricted rounds because of the capital situation that we have faced. It is all part of what we are considering at the moment, but, again, I would be happy to take that point away and consider it for future iterations of AECS.
11:15
Before we move away from agriculture funding, I want to go back to a comment that you made in response to Emma Harper. You seek a multiyear funding commitment from the UK Government, which, by its very nature, would suggest that a ring-fenced allocation of that funding would be in place for the rural portfolio. How would that ring-fenced money be calculated? Would it be on the basis of a percentage of the spend on agriculture and rural affairs south of the border and, therefore, in some way connected to rural policy there? How would you negotiate what a ring-fenced settlement might look like?
The fact that the funding has now been Barnettised, in essence, means that we will be tied to that. I will hand over to George Burgess, who will be able to provide more detail.
The recommendation in the original Bew review was for all Administrations to sit around the table and discuss exactly that question. As the cabinet secretary has said, that recommendation was agreed—although not acted on—by the previous UK Government, and the current UK Government has instead decided to move to Barnett. Future funding being based on a percentage of the spend south of the border would probably be a better position than the one in which we will end up under Barnett. The real answer is that we need to get around the table with the UK Government.
Various stakeholders, including the NFUS, have made the case that Scotland, with its larger landmass and greater potential to make improvements on biodiversity and climate change, is perhaps deserving of a greater share of the funding. However, it does not look likely that we will be able to have that discussion with the UK Government at the moment, so we might be stuck with Barnett.
I want to provide further clarity on AECS. Although our budgets are generally single year, AECS is one of the areas in which we provide multiyear commitments. The budget for the 2025-26 financial year will deliver on AECS commitments that have been entered into over the past couple of years. The applications that have come in for the 2024 AECS round have been assessed and we are clear that the budget is sufficient to meet the funding of the applicants who are deserving of it.
We will move to our second theme, which is forestry.
Last week, the committee took evidence from forestry stakeholders, who collectively expressed a need for stable funding and investment to provide confidence and to enable the sector to meet its targets. One stakeholder likened the matter to a supertanker, which is not easily stopped, turned around or restarted. Given the reduction in the funding that was available last year due to the budgetary constraints and pressures, stakeholders expect that the planting targets for this year will be missed. In the light of that, it would be helpful for the committee to understand why woodland grants have not yet been restored to 2023-24 levels in the draft budget and how you envisage target realisation in that allocation.
Your characterisation of the position is absolutely right. As I have said to the committee previously, we were absolutely not where we had hoped to be in relation to woodland grants and support for forestry creation, because of the significant cuts to that budget over the course of last year. However, it has been really positive to see the increases in the budget that we have allocated to forestry, with an increase of 18 per cent this year.
As you have outlined, and as you have heard from different stakeholders in evidence, we will not meet the 18,000 hectares target. The peak of the planting over the course of last year was 15,000 hectares. We had been on such a positive trajectory, and it is really unfortunate that, because of last year’s budget cuts, we were not on track to meet the 18,000 hectares target and will still not be on track to do it this year. I go back to your characterisation of the situation as like trying to turn a tanker around, because it is going to take time to build that figure up again.
Even if there had been an even bigger increase in the budget for woodland creation or the funding available for Scottish Forestry, I do not know whether all of that could have been used. We have to match the funding to projects that we know can come through the pipeline. I hope that, now that there has been an increase in funding, we can continue on a positive trajectory and rebuild confidence in the sector, so that it can continue to plan and invest.
The committee is very aware from stakeholders and our constituencies that forestry plays a hugely significant role in the rural economy and, I would also argue, in supply chains for the companies that use the timber. In my constituency, EGGER UK, which is part of the wood panel industry, brings high-quality jobs to a low-productivity area. There are concerns that, in 20 years’ time, the availability of timber might start to drop off. At a time when we are looking to ensure that we have more home-grown timber so that we can weather the issues resulting from the war in Ukraine, which interrupted supply—or, indeed, from Brexit, which has also complicated things—I am concerned that Forestry and Land Scotland, which employs more than 10,000 people across Scotland and is one of our prominent timber producers, has had its capital budget reduced by £3.4 million. Given that we know that demand for timber across Scotland will increase, why has that budget been cut this year?
There are a few issues to highlight in that respect. First, I absolutely recognise your point about the importance of forestry and the wider industry. According to statistics that we published fairly recently, the industry is worth more than £1 billion to our economy and employs more than 34,000 people. The fact that the UK is one of the biggest importers of timber always strikes me as not seeming right. There is so much more that we can and should do to utilise our home-grown resources, precisely because of all the challenges that you mentioned. It is really important that we are able to have continuity of supply, and I recognise that building the industry is very important.
We have two forestry agencies: Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Land Scotland. Scottish Forestry’s budget has increased by 18 per cent, as that is where the majority of the funding for the woodland creation grants come from. You are right about Forestry and Land Scotland, but I would point out that, overall, there has been a 2 per cent increase compared with the budget in previous years. Of course, there are some differences in how the budget is communicated this year, because we have made in-year transfers. Forestry and Land Scotland is a key partner in peatland restoration and other important areas of work, but the important element that we should be focusing on is the increase in the woodland creation grant and the funding available for that, as it will enable us to plant more hectares of woodland.
It would be beneficial for the committee to understand the in-year transfers up front, but I know that we cannot really do that; the fact that they happen in year makes that difficult. When we look at budget lines and think about the year ahead, in-year transfers that we cannot really account for will always make things tricky for us.
I am more than happy to provide further information on that, because it is the case across the portfolio. For example, we tend to transfer our allocation for peatland restoration to different agencies that deliver the work on our behalf.
If I have got it right, we have a target of planting 200,000 hectares by 2032, but the work is only about 25 per cent complete. From the emails that I have received, I know that the industry took quite a big hit last year. As the committee’s briefing papers note, and as I have heard from the industry, some of the big companies are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. It is not cheap to put in the processes to extract or grow timber, and it takes a long time.
One graph that I have seen shows that production will increase slightly over the next few years and then drop off significantly. Potentially, that situation was made worse by last year’s significant budget cuts. In hindsight, do you regret the fact that the money was cut from the budget, given that that has contributed to the industry’s current lack of confidence?
I have been up front and honest about the impact. I have heard strong views in my engagement with different parts of the industry, including environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives and different businesses, and that point came across loud and clear.
It was particularly disappointing. As I have said to the committee, we were on such a positive trajectory and had planted 15,000 hectares—the highest-ever level—so to take that step back was bitterly disappointing. We had significant problems with capital funding right across Government last year. Every portfolio faced difficult choices, and the situation last year was particularly challenging. I never want to be in a position again of having to make such decisions and such significant cuts.
I must look to the future. We have to try to bring back or rebuild that confidence in the sector by ensuring that we maintain and increase funding in the years ahead, to enable us to reach our targets. You are absolutely right, and I was open about this last year: we were not going to meet the targets with the funding that we had available. We were trying to work within the funding that we had and trying to adjust it to maximise planting. About half of the funding applications that we receive through the forestry grant scheme come from smaller farms and businesses, and it is important to continue that support. I want to continue on that positive trajectory from here, so that we can rebuild towards the target and not be in the position that we faced last year.
Good morning again, cabinet secretary. I wantd to pick up on something that came up at our forestry round table. We are talking about increasing planting and attempting to increase the amount of timber grown in Scotland, but, for me, what came out strongly in our discussion was the challenge of getting people into various jobs in the supply chain and the forestry sector. I was wondering where in the budget there was support for doing more of that by, for instance, highlighting forestry as a job for young people. If we want to meet the targets and ambitions, and if we want Scotland to become a forest nation where, for example, we use home-grown timber to build housing, we need people to be excited about taking up roles in forestry and the respective supply chains.
You are absolutely right, and we recognise that as an area that needs focus and attention. I do not know whether the committee is aware of the UK task force that has been established to consider woodland creation, in which the different Administrations come together to talk about the work that is taking place, about where it makes sense for us to work together and about whether there are areas where we could consider collaboration. Skills is one of the key areas, and you are absolutely right to focus on that.
Around the start of last year, I think, I hosted a woodland creation summit at which a mix of stakeholders from industry as well as from ENGOs considered the key challenges and how we could work together to tackle them. It was a really productive session and a lot of actions were taken on the back of it. Work is now being undertaken to see how we can encourage people to consider forestry as a career of choice, because there is no doubt that we are going to need the skills.
We have a number of working groups, and the industry leadership group is bringing together another part of the sector, so I offer the assurance that a lot of work is under way to consider the matter. I will meet the chief forester in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss the plans and the key areas of focus. As I have said in previous responses, I hope that we are on that positive trajectory. I recognise that there is work to do in all areas—in woodland creation, on the timber and production side of things and, importantly, on skills—but we are taking action in each of those areas.
11:30
You say that we are now on a positive trajectory, but that is only after last year’s hugely damaging cut to the budget. Do you think that increasing the budget by significantly less than what the industry is looking for is a positive move? Does it not send the message to the industry that forestry is not a Government priority? We are still seeing funding that falls far short of what the industry needs.
We heard from Tim Eagle that some of our major industry players are looking outwith the UK to ensure stability for their businesses. Is an increase in this year’s budget, after last year’s massive damaging cuts, adequate to turn around the oil tanker, as Elena Whitham referred to it?
I hope so. I hope that I can get us back on track and on to a positive trajectory. I have not shied away from—indeed, I have very much confronted—the challenges that last year’s budget presented, particularly in relation to forestry, but we have heard completely what stakeholders have said to us about that.
We must also consider what will be deliverable over the course of the coming year. There would be nothing to gain from massively increasing the budget—if that were possible—if the money was then not spent because the projects were not there. We must be careful about the allocations, because we all want to see them fully utilised.
I realise that confidence has been dented. We want to repair and build it again, and I believe that the budget that we have before us is a step in the right direction.
We will move on to our third theme, which is NatureScot. We have a question from Beatrice Wishart.
NatureScot has received quite a significant cash-terms budget cut of £10 million, or 12.8 per cent. What implications will that have across your portfolio?
The budget for NatureScot does not fall within my portfolio, and I do not have overall responsibility for the agency, so I am not too clear what the implications would be. As I mentioned, we provide funding to NatureScot through the farming with nature programme. The funding would be provided specifically to carry out that work, if it is to go ahead. It is hard for me to provide more detail as to exactly what that would mean for NatureScot, because I have not had discussions on that with it.
Have you had discussions with your counterpart in net zero and energy?
Not specifically in relation to the NatureScot budget. Obviously, there are areas that impact my portfolio, as I have outlined. I do not have the overall portfolio responsibility for NatureScot, so it is hard for me to answer in any detail as to what the implications would be.
I suppose that I am talking about the funding for peatland restoration.
We have had an increase in the peatland restoration funding that is available, and we pay a number of different agencies, including the national park authorities and NatureScot, to carry out that work on our behalf. We will see an increase in the funding that is provided for peatland restoration over the coming year, which will enable us to restore more degraded peat. Over the past year, we have restored around 10,000 hectares, and we have a target of restoring around 250,000 hectares. The funding that we have available over the coming year will lead to potentially around 16,000 hectares being restored.
In relation to skills and the businesses that do the work, it is important for there to be confidence in the pipeline of funding.
You are absolutely right. It is very similar to the conversation that we have just had on forestry. Peatland restoration is still a relatively young industry. We want to see it continue to build and grow, and we need that confidence to enable that to happen. That means that we must continue to provide funding to enable growth to take place and, exactly as you have said, to ensure that we build the skills, career opportunities and training opportunities. I believe that the funding that we have available in the budget this year puts us in that positive space, where we are able to restore more and, I hope, continue to build confidence in the industry.
Cabinet secretary, although you do not have overall responsibility for NatureScot, you must appreciate that, through its licensing functions, distribution of funds and, as you have touched on, peatland and nature restoration, as well as planning and advisory roles, NatureScot is responsible for areas that affect your portfolio in sectors such as aquaculture and forestry. Therefore, NatureScot’s ability to perform will have a significant impact on your portfolio.
Given that NatureScot has had a 12 per cent cut in cash terms, or a 15 per cent cut in real terms, what discussions do you have about that with your counterpart, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy? Obviously, that cut will have a massive impact on the ability to deliver on your ambitions.
In preparation for appearing before the committee to discuss the budget, I was preparing for scrutiny in the areas of my overall portfolio responsibility. As I said, there are areas of funding that we transfer to NatureScot, so I just wanted to be clear on that. I am more than happy to follow up with more details for the committee on what that will look like for NatureScot.
Of course, there are impacts across my portfolio. NatureScot delivers a number of important functions, and we work closely with the organisation—I want to be absolutely clear on that. With regard to the absolute detail and how that is being managed for NatureScot, again, I am not able to answer that today. On the funding that is provided from my portfolio for those specific functions, I still fully expect that work to be undertaken and have an impact. I am more than happy to follow up with further information on that for the committee.
That would be appreciated.
We will move to theme 4, which is fisheries. The first question is from Tim Eagle.
This theme is of interest to me, and I have been doing a wee bit of research into it. I am getting increasingly worried about the marine directorate and its future. We heard this morning about issues in relation to salmon, and I am hearing lots of conversations from the fishing industry about what the directorate is doing. I was not a member of this committee at the time of the visit to the facilities, but I heard that they are not in a particularly good state. All of that leads me to worry that the marine directorate is not in a position to deliver the functions that are critical for Scotland. On top of that, it had a budget cut last year and has had another budget cut this year. How do you address the concerns that the marine directorate’s capacity to deliver its functions simply is not possible within the context of a budget cut?
You have raised a number of hugely important points, and there are a few things that I want to touch on.
The presentation of the figures has not helped in any way. What looks like an overall budget cut is based on the budget revision. When you compare it with the original 2024-25 budget as it was published, you see that there has been a 1 per cent increase in the funding—I want to be clear on that point. It is more of a presentational issue, because of the changes in the way that the budget has been presented.
I visited Aberdeen recently to see the marine directorate—I have visited it previously—and I understand the committee’s concerns about the site in Aberdeen. The directorate carries out vital functions for us in relation to science, compliance, enforcement and a number of different areas, as well as all the work that is being undertaken in relation to the marine environment. I believe that the directorate undertakes that role very well, and we are continuing to invest in the marine directorate as a whole.
I will touch on some of the particular issues that you raised. In the pre-budget committee evidence, we covered in some detail committee members’ concerns about the estate in Aberdeen. At that time, I outlined the establishment of a project board to look at short-term measures for some of the issues at the site as well as at the medium-term and longer-term plans. That work is still very much under way.
It is important to highlight that, as challenging as the estate in Aberdeen is, there has been significant investment over the past few years. Around £9 million has been spent on the estate, but further work is planned over the course of the coming year as we work towards longer-term solutions on the site. I listened carefully to the evidence that the committee received and to the concerns from a variety of stakeholders, and we are continuing to invest in the marine directorate because of the vital functions that it undertakes.
We are aware of multiple strands of work that are being carried out by the marine directorate. Its commitments for this session of Parliament include fisheries management measures for marine protected areas and priority marine features, as well as work on fisheries stock assessments. I would like an update on the work on marine protected areas and priority marine features. There is a commitment to have that work completed by the end of this session, but is there enough resource in place for that and for the fisheries stock assessment? Will those tasks be carried out by different teams?
In a minute, I will hand over to Iain Wallace, who will be able to provide further detail.
The work on MPAs and PMFs is led by the net zero portfolio, although it sits within the marine directorate. We consulted on offshore measures last year and the results of that consultation are being analysed.
As I have told the committee, there are resource pressures on specific areas of work right across Government. The work on the inshore marine protected areas and the PMFs has taken a lot longer than was anticipated, purely because that has been such a big and complex piece of work on more than 160 different sites. We have proceeded with the offshore element, but I cannot provide a more specific timeframe for the work on the inshore element. I emphasise that that is a big and complex piece of work and one that is still very much on-going.
Iain may be able to give some further information.
As the cabinet secretary said, we are undertaking an analysis of the consultation on offshore MPAs at the moment and will look to implement the measures later this year. The onshore work is more complex because there are 160 sites. We are working through that now and will provide a further update on the timeline in due course.
You also asked about the strategy work on fisheries management. We will provide an update this spring on all the actions that we have undertaken and will set out the next steps that we will take on that strategy.
Thank you for those responses, but the root of my question was about whether there is enough resource in both places to meet those commitments. Is there enough funding in the budget?
We have an overall allocation for the marine directorate and there are different budget lines within that for the initial allocations. Iain Wallace will be able to give more detail, but at the moment there are indicative allocations, which are the starting point for business planning to look at the key priorities and decide where resources can best be placed. As I have said, we will be happy to provide the committee with further information about the internal allocations across each of the portfolios within the marine directorate if that would be helpful.
That would be welcome. Thank you.
My question builds on the issue of resourcing. We were previously told that restructuring and a reduction in staff costs had resulted in a fall in the number of full-time marine directorate staff from 825 in December 2022 to 760 in December 2023. Is that staff reduction across the board or has it taken place in particular areas of the marine directorate? The obvious implication is that the marine directorate is lacking capacity to deliver its remit, which is of concern.
11:45
I will hand over to Iain Wallace, who will be able to give more information on what the staff reduction looks like. It is more appropriate for him to answer, because it is more of a workforce question.
There have been structural changes and people have transferred between directorates, which has not necessarily changed the work but makes it appear as if there have been bigger changes than there have been.
One key area that the directorate is constantly looking at is how to improve and become more efficient, and it is looking at wider transformation work as well. I have seen some of those initiatives at first hand. In my previous appearance at the committee, when we discussed some of those issues, I used the example of drone technology, which increases our capabilities and can help us in a number of ways.
However, there have also been changes in other areas, such as onshore operations. There has been an overall resource reduction of about 12 per cent but also a 39 per cent increase in the overall number of port inspections, and that is because workloads have been reprioritised.
I will hand over to Iain to give more information specifically about the workforce.
Thank you. I am happy to go through that. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, at the marine directorate we are very focused on workforce planning and how we get—[Inaudible.]—and efficiencies as we move forward. I can give you some key headlines, which relate to the changes that happened in 2022, and then share a bit about what we are planning to do in the future.
Since 2022, some short-term, temporary work has stopped, which has resulted in a change to our full-time equivalents. For example, we had 12 FTEs on a directorate information technology project, which involved external people coming in, and that project successfully concluded. We did have some FTEs on our transformation work, which involved starting to look at our structures and the efficiencies that we could get.
As we have previously outlined to the committee, restructuring took place across the directorate, and, as the cabinet secretary said, there were other structural changes in the directorate. In total, 14 FTEs moved over to the offshore wind directorate after it was created. Although it appears that there has been a reduction in the amount of marine work being done, that work is still happening across the Scottish Government but it is offshore directorate work.
The cabinet secretary mentioned that efficiencies are being made in operations. Some have come about through digitisation and some have come about through prioritisation. That is encouraging, because there has also been an uplift in productivity.
We continue to look at our annual delivery plan. In future years, we will be looking to keep up the theme of continuous improvement throughout our organisation, so that we can develop our strategic workforce plan and continue to deliver value for money.
Last year’s drone trial on the marine protection vessel Hirta was really successful. We are starting to look at how that technology can improve our capability. We are working through our business cases and considering our next options, and we will provide some information on those in the coming months.
The committee is also aware of our science and innovation strategy, in which we are working with internal and external stakeholders on areas of research interest and the implementation plan. That is due to be published in April.
I hope that that helps to answer the question and explains the trajectory since 2022 in regard to the workforce.
Thank you.
Let us turn to vessel replacement. I do not want to mention the dreaded word “ferries”—although I just have—but we need to have the vessels out there. At the moment, some in the fishing industry are slightly worried about what is going on out at sea and whether we are boarding the right boats. I know that it is about risk, not nationality, but, fundamentally, is there enough money in the budget to continue to replace or upgrade vessels, where needed, so that our fleet and aircraft are always ready to maintain our fishing sector?
You are absolutely right—those are a vital component of our important compliance and enforcement work. The committee will be aware that we have three marine protection vessels, two marine research vessels and, of course, aircraft and inshore patrol vessels.
Investing in that fleet is hugely important. Like any vessel, our vessels will reach an end-of-life stage. The two that are closest to that are the MRV Scotia and the MPV Minna. We are looking at a procurement exercise for those vessels and at what that might look like. I want to give an assurance that we are acutely aware of the issue and are trying to prepare for the future.
As I touched on in a previous answer, this is also about how we can best utilise new technologies. The pilot that was undertaken with the drone was very important. It is a really vital capability that we could well bring forward. It could very much help with compliance and enforcement, because we have a vast marine area to patrol. Looking at those other capabilities and at where we can best utilise new technologies will be really critical, as will maximising our resources. I give an assurance that that is very much at the forefront of our minds and that we are constantly looking to adapt and to add to our capabilities.
I have a very quick follow-up question. I do not disagree with your point: we should be looking at new and emerging technologies and how they can help in all sectors. However, can I double check that there is money in the budget to do that? Are you confident that the marine directorate has the funding to look into using drone technology, whether water based or airborne?
Yes—to investigate its use. We have already undertaken the pilot, so the evaluation of that pilot work will, of course, be important in how we take that forward. I do not have any concerns about the budget allocation that we have available for that. There is also a long lead-in time, initially, when it comes to vessel procurement. I do not have any concerns about our being able to take forward that work in relation to the new technologies.
Before I bring in Rhoda Grant, I have a question about vessel replacement off the back of that. If you run an organisation that has a minibus, you know that, after a certain time, it will need to be replaced. Every year, you build up a reserve so that it is there when the time comes and it needs to be replaced. Given that we have a static capital budget of £7.3 million for costs such as the marine labs and vessel running costs, is there a contingency fund or pot that has been built up with a view to the vessels being replaced when the time arises?
You are absolutely right. Everything approaches its end-of-life period, and that is what we are planning for at the moment.
Of course, there are other costs that we also have to bear within the budget. Some of the biggest increases that we have seen relate to fuel costs, which have risen dramatically. To give the committee an idea of the impact of that, which can be very big, if fuel goes up by 13p a litre, that is an extra £50,000 a month in fuel costs for the vessels. That is a cost that we have to control and manage while we plan for new vessels as the vessels that we have approach their end-of-service years.
The cabinet secretary will know that seafarers in the marine directorate are significantly underpaid compared with other seafarers employed by the Scottish Government. Does the budget allow there to be parity between them and people who work with Caledonian MacBrayne, for example, rather than their being underpaid so significantly?
I will have to ask Iain Wallace to provide more information on that.
I am happy to do so. Our marine pay negotiations are due to start in the coming months, so we can give further updates on that as they start to progress.
We have seen significant uplifts in pay. The last pay deal that was agreed with the marine unions was a two-year pay deal that will run out this year. That included some reform options, which gave seafarer colleagues options to do call-back on the vessels, which was also well received.
We can give further updates as we start to progress through the marine pay negotiations. However, we are content that there is sufficient money in the budget.
It would be useful to see the comparisons, with your seafarers and those who work with CalMac progressing towards equality.
Cabinet secretary, I am interested in the inshore fisheries management improvement programme, which I believe is referred to as IFMI—another acronym to add to our lives. Has there been an assessment of the anticipated costs of developing a new inshore fisheries framework under IFMI to ensure that it is funded sufficiently?
Yes, we have some wonderful acronyms, particularly in this portfolio. I think that costs will very much feature in the programme of work for inshore fisheries, but I do not think that we are at that stage at the moment. As the committee will be aware, we have undertaken an initial call for evidence, so we are still very much at the early stages of that work. Of course, any costs will feature as that work progresses.
Good morning, cabinet secretary. I will raise something that was brought up in last year’s budget discussions, which is that the marine directorate could maximise income generated through the likes of commercial science, licensing fees and energy consenting fees. Has there been an increase in those revenues as a result? If so, how are they being reinvested?
We seek to maximise income from those areas where we can. I do not have specific figures on that in front of me. Iain, do you have that information to hand?
I can provide the headline figure. In the past year, the marine directorate has received £9 million in total income from the variety of sources that Emma Roddick talked about. Some of that has come from our licensing functions, some from our science colleagues and some from using our aircraft. We can follow up with a breakdown of that £9 million.
That would be helpful. Are you exploring other potential options for revenue raising that is not happening at the moment?
That is something that we will pick up through the implementation plan for our science and innovation strategy. As part of that, we will consider what options there may be in future years from a science perspective.
I have a question that was raised when the committee visited the marine directorate’s science laboratories in Aberdeen. It is about how priorities are identified in the annual delivery plan. I understand that the annual delivery plan is being formulated and will be published in due course.
Cabinet secretary, you will be delighted to hear that I am going to raise the topic of cockles, for which we have a fishery whose work on stock assessment has, up to now, been almost entirely funded via UK grant schemes and facilitated by local fishermen and scientists. At the moment, it is quite clear that there is an economically viable cockle fishery based on vessels in the Solway. The missing element is the stakeholders, including South of Scotland Enterprise, which is interested in the economic sustainability of Dumfries and Galloway as a region. How do we trigger an investigation into possibilities such as the opening of a new cockle fishery in the annual delivery plan, given that, based on the information that I have seen, which is in the public domain, it would be cost neutral and potentially generate more than £3 million for the economy that the fishery would border?
Discussions on the annual delivery plan are about looking at priorities for the coming year and how to best allocate resources within that year. We have had discussions on this previously, convener, and I have not received final advice in relation to potential next steps for the proposal. As we have said in previous conversations, it would feature in the wider discussion that we will have about overall priorities. However, it is important for me to be in receipt of that advice first.
How do you juggle national priorities and local priorities?
That is part of the discussions that we have on overall resource allocation. Something being a local issue rather than a national one does not make it less important, because it can be economically significant for a particular part of the country, which makes it important. Those matters are all part of the balanced discussions that have to take place.
Thank you. We will now move on to our final theme—theme 5—which is on the islands.
12:00
Cabinet secretary, can you say whether the £26 million spend on the islands programme has had a positive impact on population levels and economic development in the islands?
I am not too sure that I would be able to provide precise information on a definitive connection or exact statistics. What is important is that, when we look at applications to the islands programme, we require them to meet our objectives in the overall national islands plan across a number of different areas.
I would hope that the islands programme is having a positive impact on the economy and local populations through some of the programmes and projects that we have funded. One that automatically springs to mind is a new nursery that is being constructed in Orkney. I visited the project in September, when I heard about the positive impact that it will have for people when it is up and running.
The islands programme has funded specific initiatives that might not have taken place otherwise that I think will have positive impacts on the economy as well as on populations. It has helped to fund various projects on the islands, depending on the differing needs of different communities, such as accommodation for temporary workers. In past few years that the islands programme has been in operation, I think that there have been more than 70 projects across 50 different islands. I believe that, as a whole, they have had a positive impact.
In the national islands plan review, the majority of respondents thought that there had been be no progress on 11 of the 13 objectives. That relates to objective 3, on transport, and to the objective on fuel poverty.
We listened really carefully to the outcomes of that consultation and to what islanders are saying about a new national islands plan. All of that will be taken into consideration. As the committee will be aware, we are in the process of developing a new national islands plan, and we are considering how best to update the first plan to reflect the needs of island communities. There will, of course, be further engagement on that as we go forward. We have to listen carefully to what islanders are telling us.
Thank you.
Although there is undoubtedly positivity in the islands about the funding that has been made available through the islands plan, the committee has heard concerns from some local authorities about the competitive bidding approach. I have raised that issue in the past, and projects in the Shetland Islands and in Highland Council areas have raised it with me. They do not want to compete against one another and they say that making allocations to the authorities to distribute might be a better way forward. Will future islands plan funding use the same approach that has been used?
I know that the committee has scrutinised that issue over the past few years. It is important to know that we have listened carefully to all the recommendations that the committee has made on the back of that scrutiny on how we can improve our allocation of that funding and the make-up of the programme board. We have very much listened to, taken in and acted on that feedback.
It is always difficult when considering whether to use a direct allocation model or a competitive bid model—there is no getting around that. If you directly allocate, that naturally means that there is not as much money—that is, smaller pots might go to different islands, which means that bigger projects might not be able to go forward because the level of funding will not be there to support them. That is just one of the trade-offs that there are when the two different models are considered.
We have retained the competitive bid model and have refined it over the past couple years. Although I completely understand that some local authorities can see that they might lose out in one round, we believe that that model allows bigger projects to proceed that might not have gone ahead otherwise. I think that our competitive bid model enables a greater variety of projects, too. The Scottish Futures Trust has undertaken a lot of work, including with local authorities, on preparation of those projects and on looking at the wider pipeline.
I believe that we have acted on the advice that we have received from the committee. Our competitive bid model is the most appropriate at the moment, but I am more than happy to take on board and consider any specific feedback from the committee on the matter. Some of the projects have been big and hugely important, and we probably have the right model in place.
I want to ask about cross-cutting work in the Government. You are responsible for the islands programmes and the implementation of the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018, and you are trying to level the playing field between islands and the mainland. However, in the local government budget, for example, we see that two out of our three island authorities have faced cuts since 2013-14, with an 18 per cent cut in Eilean Siar’s budget. It seems to me that you are looking at getting funds in place to help the islands while other departments do not recognise the issue in any way whatsoever, and cuts in budgets are making your job harder.
It is the responsibility of all parts of Government and all relevant authorities to undertake island communities impact assessments when it is believed that there would be a disproportionate impact on those communities. That work is very much undertaken.
The Government is vast and I have a cross-co-ordination role in relation to which I am supported by the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. We are supported by a team of islands officials who embed that work across Government and with different departments to ensure that our island communities are always taken into consideration.
I do not think that it is fair to say that my portfolio cares about islands and others do not. You have picked a specific example, and I do not have all the figures on that, but my portfolio is not the only portfolio responsible for investing in islands or, in fact, in rural communities. I mentioned climate funding earlier. Funding for that sits with the NZET portfolio and will be transferred to the transport portfolio, which has specific projects that are set to benefit rural and island communities as well.
There are funds right across Government, in other portfolios, for undertaking and delivering. The work that is undertaken through the national islands plan is really helpful in pulling all of that together, because it is about showing other parts of Government what we are doing across Government to deliver for our island communities. The work that we are taking forward on the refresh of the national islands plan, which ensures that we have identified the most pressing challenges for island communities and that we are taking action to address them, is really important.
Would an island communities impact assessment have been carried out on the local government budget cuts?
I expect island communities impact assessments to be part of the work that Government does. When there is a disproportionate impact, those impact assessments should be undertaken, much in the same way as we do BRIAs and equality impact assessments and provide fairer funding. I expect that it forms part of what portfolios are looking at.
We are really looking for confirmation that those impact assessments were done, rather than that they should have been done.
I do not have them in front of me, but I expect that they have been done. I can follow that up with the committee and provide confirmation.
That would be appreciated.
I believe that we do not have any other questions, other than that we probably need to ask, for transparency and for the record, what your favourite acronym from the portfolio is. [Laughter.]
I do not know. IFMI is the one that is closest to my mind, so I think that it is my new favourite.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We know that you are under the weather today, and it has been a bit of a mammoth session with salmon and the budget, so we appreciate your efforts and those of your officials. Thank you very much for attending.
That concludes our business for today.
Meeting closed at 12:09.Air ais
Subordinate Legislation