Seòmar agus comataidhean

That does not make sense to me, but there you go.

Three panel members—Hannah Fennell, Bally Philp and Sheila Keith—have talked about the desire to be a fisherman and about wanting to go into the industry, because of the long-term prospects and all the rest of it. I know nothing about fishing at the level that you guys clearly know it, but my understanding is that fisher folk go out on boats and get a share of the catch. If it is a high-value catch, they all do very well out of it. In all my communication with fishermen, it has always been seen as a good, viable way to make a living, so why are people in our country saying, “Fishing is not for me”? Is it because of demonisation? Is it because there is no money in it? Is it because people do not see a future for it? It is important that we get down into that issue.

What do you mean by “neutral”? Who is producing science that is not neutral?

Can I ask a question, convener?

Bally Philp talked about overcapacity of trawlers in certain areas, yet we know that more than 100,000 jobs have been lost in the fishing industry in the past 30 or 40 years, and Sheila Keith has been talking about losing critical mass of infrastructure, so where is the overcapacity of trawlers coming from?

Elaine Whyte, you just mentioned £20,000 in lawyers’ fees. Can you explain that, please?

Therefore, you need lawyers to make your applications for your visas?

Can I come back on that, convener? Who is producing science that is—

In a letter to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, the Deputy First Minister outlined potential budget savings. Where do you see savings being made in areas that are within the scope of this committee?

The convener asked whether that £5 million would go back in the central pot. Is it in the gift of your portfolio to make interventions to help people with the cost of living crisis outwith your normal funding, or will that funding come from central Government?