Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a lot in that question. There are some specific points that I will have to follow up on in correspondence, and I will be happy to do so in a letter to the committee.

It is a difficult situation, because there is a lot happening in the marine space, as has been touched on previously. It is also an increasingly polarised space, which can make it difficult to progress some of the policies that we are taking forward. However, we have a strong focus on our engagement with stakeholders, and strong relationships exist.

Across the piece, we have tried to put some of the engagement bodies on a more strategic footing. We have done a refresh of the fisheries management and conservation group and the regional inshore fisheries groups, and we will need to monitor the new arrangement and see whether it is working and delivering as everybody hoped that it would. The FMAC, which has various sub-groups, has been put on a more strategic footing, and it meets more regularly, in line with the terms of reference.

Those measures are bedding in, but there are opportunities for stakeholders to feed into our decision-making processes. I meet a variety of stakeholders, which is important. Maintaining those relationships is important, too.

I do not know whether Malcolm Pentland wants to add anything.

There were no big changes as a result of the change in name. It was done just to better recognise that the marine directorate is a directorate of the Scottish Government and not a separate organisation. I would have to get the exact head count figures, as I do not have them to hand—perhaps Iain Wallace or Malcolm Pentland has that information.

We do not necessarily need to wait for a review of the national outcomes before dealing with some of the problems. If there are particular circumstances that need to be looked into, please let me and other relevant ministers know about them.

It is important that we do not forget about the work that is on-going. Our national islands plan is a good example of that. Providing broadband and general connectivity is one of the current plan’s strategic outcomes, and we have to set out how we are delivering against that outcome through the work that is being undertaken.

I appreciate that people who live in a community that does not have access to fibre broadband will feel left out, but, generally, digital connectivity has been improving. However, people in the areas that have not been reached yet will feel the issues more acutely. We have to set out how we are delivering against that outcome and others.

We picked up on a lot of the issues, some of which you have touched on, through the consultation on the national islands plan last year. We heard loud and clear that the plan needs to be updated to reflect some of the current challenges that island communities face. Those will be taken into consideration when we set the objectives in the new national islands plan, which we will publish next year.

That work is, of course, island specific, but I have also talked about what the rural delivery plan might look like. It will not replicate what is in the national islands plan, but it will set out what we are doing across different policy areas to address some of the challenges for our rural communities in Scotland.

First, I refute what you said about a lack of delivery, because we have delivered on some of the areas that you have mentioned, including the publication of the rural and islands—

To be absolutely clear, is the £61 million the overall figure that you are referring to—

Again, the £61 million was largely from unspent funds—

I am sorry, but the figure that you are referencing there—I know that there is the £61 million of ring-fenced funding, but in relation to that—

In the work that we are taking forward, we already know that we have stringent targets to meet. Regardless of when the climate change plan might be published, our overall ambition is still to achieve net zero by 2045, and we still have to report annually on how we are doing on emissions. The targets that we have had on agriculture, for example, are really stretching. The programme of work that we have set out and the timeline for it have been important in allowing us to illustrate how we intend to reduce emissions over that period and how we will do so through the framework of future support and incentivising the behaviours that we want.

We already know that we have stringent targets to meet. Regardless of when the climate change plan might come through, that will not stop or inhibit any of that work, because we know that we need to continue to work at pace to implement those changes.

It is as has been set out. All the areas that we must have regard to are described in detail in the legislation that we passed, through various amendments to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill on the rural support plan. We are not dealing with these policies in isolation. Whatever is set out in relation to the biodiversity strategy and the delivery plan—there will also be a natural environment bill, which will underpin some of that in legislation—will feature in our development of the future agricultural support system and framework.

I thank the committee for all the work that it did during the passage of the bill that became that act, because some of the amendments that were made greatly strengthened the legislation. When we develop our future policy, we will have regard to everything in the act, including the point that you mention, so that will feature in our plans. Again, I cannot say definitively that that will form part of some of our programmes or funding streams, but we will have regard to it.