Seòmar agus comataidhean

In fact, the Minister for Transport also attends some of those meetings. There used to be a transport and islands group, and it makes sense that we do not do that work in isolation, so her attendance has become a regular part of those meetings. I want to provide reassurance about that.

I am confident that that is happening, because, as we have said in relation to the guidance and what we look for in project applications, we have a strong weighting towards projects that deliver against the national islands plan’s objectives, of which addressing fuel poverty is one.

We know that there are significant issues there, but I highlight that there is funding available other than through the islands programme. For example, we supported a number of recent initiatives through the islands cost crisis emergency fund. We provided £1.4 million of funding last year and supplemented that with another £1 million this year to address the most critical need, because we know about the increased costs that people who live on our islands face. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to provide a breakdown to the committee of how that funding is being spent.

In essence, we wanted to make sure that we got that money to local authorities as quickly as possible, for them to spend as they saw fit. In Shetland, it has been used to fund free school breakfasts, and it has been used to continue or supplement existing work in other island areas. I am happy to provide more information on that, if it would be helpful.

The Bew review funds are ring fenced for agriculture. You will be aware that we set out in the overall programme how the £51 million of funding over three years was going to be returned to the portfolio. I do not know the specific figure that you refer to, or in what year that became apparent. Is that in relation to the figures that we discussed previously?

Do you mean giving it directly through the islands programme?

Are you referring to the resource spending review and the capital spending review?

I understand the concerns about that, because we want to make sure that there is a pipeline of projects going forward. Of course, we continue to work closely with other bodies, and we are aware that the islands programme can be used as an enabler or stepping stone for other funds. It also funds things in relation to enabling infrastructure for housing that the more homes fund would not fund in and of itself. It is hugely important in that regard. If the situation remains as it is at the moment and the capital funding is not there, it gives us a couple of opportunities to further refine the application process. Of course, we will continue to work with the Scottish Futures Trust to ensure that that pipeline of work continues. We cannot forget that the delivery of on-going projects still has to be undertaken, so we will continue with that work as well.

To go back to what I said previously, I know how important the islands programme is, but it is not the only capital or infrastructure spend that happens across our islands. There will be continued investment, whether that is in housing or in other areas across Government. There is also the funding that is coming through the islands growth deal. We need to remember all of that other spend in the round when we think about the spend that takes place in our islands.

No problem. As I said, during the past couple of years of the programme we have been learning as we went and have been trying to modify the process. I remember from discussions that we have had about the islands programme that it is always difficult to look at the pros and cons of a direct award versus a competitive bid, and that is why it was interesting to hear the evidence from local authorities that the committee received about that.

There are drawbacks with direct award because, if we did that, the allocations could be a lot smaller for some areas, which means that they would not be able to take forward some of the larger projects that we have been able to fund.

On the competitive bid process, we have already said that we have made various changes to the guidance and to the process to streamline it. We have also removed the ceiling on applications so that local authorities can decide whether they want to take through a large project or would prefer to submit applications for a number of smaller projects. That process gives us overall strategic oversight. As Erica Clarkson outlined, we can also ensure that we are delivering against the objectives of the national islands plan.

Ultimately, we would not have been able to fund some of the big projects that have been part of the programme during the past couple of years if it had not been for the competitive bid process. Therefore, although I understand the calls for direct award, I think that we have greater flexibility in a competitive bid model.

As Erica Clarkson said, we are always keen to learn from what is happening on other projects elsewhere, but I do not know whether that is what you meant about sharing the learning from projects.

It cannot be seen in such a straightforward way, because, right now, there are huge population disparities even between islands. The Orkney mainland saw the biggest increase, and the Shetland outer isles saw a decrease. You are absolutely right that there are problem areas, and it is important that we work with the economic agencies and local authorities in those areas through the convention of the south of Scotland and the convention of the Highlands and Islands.

I mentioned community settlement officers, who have been based in areas where there are particular problems. We have part-funded that initiative, together with HIE and the local authorities. Again, not all of that funding comes from my budget—there is a role for the population team in that. It is about how, together, we best utilise that funding.

I cannot pre-empt what is going to come through the addressing depopulation action plan, but it will look at the actions that we are already taking, potential new actions that could make a big impact going forward, and, importantly, how we are working at a local level to tackle the issues in specific areas. I hope that that answers your point.

No problem—I am happy to do that. We have £5 million in the budget to support the work of the Farm Advisory Service, which provides that kind of bespoke advice as well as more generic advice. It has been really important with regard to the advice that it can offer farmers and crofters.

However, it is not only the Farm Advisory Service that is important here. We know that peer-to-peer learning, knowledge transfer and innovation are really important, too, which is why we have put in place the knowledge transfer and innovation fund—or KTIF—to support various knowledge transfer projects. For example, we have supported the funding of monitor farms, which we know are very well received. Sharing that experience and learning is important for the businesses involved, and we are addressing the issue through a variety of funds.

I also emphasise that we know how important skills advice and continuous professional development are. That came through strongly in the consultation on the future agriculture bill. Earlier this year, I announced that work would be undertaken by the James Hutton Institute and Scotland’s Rural College on what a future system of agricultural knowledge and innovation might look like. They published their research at the start of the summer, and we are keen to see what we can take from it and what options we can develop as part of the future framework.