Seòmar agus comataidhean

You touched on inshore fisheries, and we have had evidence from a number of stakeholders on them. Elspeth Macdonald, from the Scottish Fishermen’s Association, said that

“the directorate is spinning many, many plates and it looks to us as if the resource ... is being spread too thinly over too many things”,

and that

“We have many data gaps and poor information in relation to many of our inshore fisheries compared with some of the other fisheries.”

Similarly, Elaine Whyte, from the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, said:

“We feel that we have less contact with staff and that staff have more pressure on them. Going back 10 years ago, I would make a phone call to a member of staff to sort an issue, but that is far more difficult now.”

We know that previous budget documents have stated that an increase in marine directorate has been directed towards net zero, biodiversity and the expansion of offshore renewables. Is that the reason why we are hearing concerns relating to other fisheries policy areas? Has there been a negative impact on the delivery of fisheries policy objectives because of the focus on areas other than the fishing industry?

We move on to fisheries science.

That concerns the overall budget, but you state that the committee will

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

I am not aware of that, and I am asking you which recommendations have not been implemented.

Another thing that raises questions relates to ring-fenced funding. The first table in your letter suggests that ring-fenced money and Bew review money are completely separate. Is the Bew review money not ring fenced? Is it not a conditional payment from the UK Treasury that is to be used for agriculture?

Okay.

We move on to compliance and enforcement.

Thank you, Ms Grahame.

We move to theme 5, which is collaboration and co-management, with a question from Ariane Burgess.

Before we move on to overarching rural issues, we will pause for a comfort break.

That is still a bit confusing. The Bew review was a process to identify whether the ring-fenced money was appropriate. It reflected on the nature of agriculture in Scotland, and it suggested that that money was not appropriate. We had an uplift of £25.7 million per year after that review. The ring-fenced money was not adequate but, as a result of the review, it has been increased by £25.7 million, very loosely—in general. My difficulty is that the cabinet secretary’s letter says that

“savings totalling £61.1 million were given up from within this ring-fenced budget.”

The budget is either ring fenced or not ring fenced—that is the difficulty. The £61.1 million does not relate to the £25.7 million. When is the Scottish Government allowed to dip into the ring-fenced budget that is allocated from the UK Treasury for agriculture?

Ultimately, all agriculture funding is ring fenced; it is not like any other part of the Scottish settlement, which is subject to the Barnett formula. Agriculture funding in Scotland is not subject to the Barnett formula, so is it not the case that the funding is, in effect, ring fenced for agriculture?