Seòmar agus comataidhean

I absolutely recognise the issue. Whenever I have been out and about on visits, I have not found one area, whether it relates to my portfolio, the wider economy or society, that is not struggling at the moment. The issue is felt particularly acutely in rural and island areas, given some of the challenges that we have talked about—particularly energy costs. The cost of living crisis is affecting everyone, but I think that it affects our rural communities more because of some of the factors that we have talked about.

We have tried to help as much as possible. I have talked about what we have done through agriculture payments to try to ensure that there is at least cash flow to aid businesses as much as possible. We have continued to develop and deliver other schemes, which will have a positive impact. Funding of more than £14 million is available through the marine fund Scotland this year. There is also the food processing, marketing and co-operation grant scheme, on which announcements will be made soon, I believe.

We know how critical such projects are. I hear all the time about what they have delivered in the past. It is important that we have been able to continue schemes, to ease the burden on businesses and communities as best we can with the resources that are available to us.

Again, only a small part of that sum has been allocated for spend in this financial year. We have to see what the allocations will be for forthcoming financial years before we take further decisions.

Yes. I have had meetings with the cabinet secretary to discuss those issues. I engage with a lot of stakeholders, including community groups and housing organisations, due to the nature of my role. Those issues are relevant to almost all policy areas, so my engagement with ministerial colleagues is really important.

There is also a ministerial task force on population, which is about those cross-cutting issues. I lead on the rural and islands strand of that work, which is led, overall, by the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. We try to ensure that we deliver on those objectives, and we are engaging with stakeholders, because it is critical to do so if we are going to deliver the changes that our island communities need.

On your first point, that is not a budget cut to farming. As I said earlier, it does not impact on any current schemes or on what we are delivering through the national test programme. Again, it is ring-fenced funding that must come back to the portfolio. I want to be clear on that point.

We are restricted with regard to the changes that we can make and what we can deliver in that interim time, because of the legislation that was passed in 2020 and because of our previous commitment that we would deliver stability and simplicity throughout that time. It has been a really important piece of work to ensure at least as much stability as we can provide, given all the different crises and upheaval over the past few years.

I absolutely understand and take the point that people are planning for the future—they want to know what future policy will mean for their business and they want to see the detail of that. The consultation was not going to deliver that detail, because it is about the enabling powers that we need for future legislation.

However, set out within that is the broad framework of what we are looking at, and we also have our commitment that we will continue to support food production through direct payments. That is the conditionality bit, but, of course, the co-development that I mentioned is critical here, because we want to ensure that we get that right. That is why that work is important. We want to deliver something that will deliver on all our targets and that is, ultimately, workable.

I am absolutely committed to that work, and, of course, we want to provide as much detail as we can. More detail will emerge in due course.

Essentially, we listened to the people who live on our islands. We had extensive consultation, and the islands team went out and engaged with different island communities. Although, overall, the consultation results with regard to how people felt about the issue were finely balanced, the resounding response from island communities was that they did not want the policy to go ahead. To be honest, that is what we listened to. I do not want to thrust anything on to islands or island communities that they do not want or put in place a policy that would not end up working.

However, even though we are not going ahead with that policy, the consultation events that took place were really helpful. It was, in fact, really important that we undertook them, given how much came out of that engagement, and we are looking at all of that now and will, I hope, be in a place to take some of that work forward.

That is the thing—the people in these communities know them best, and all sorts of different suggestions came out of the consultation events about what could help to retain populations in island areas. We are really focusing on that feedback to find out what learning we can take and whether there might be any other pilot projects that we can take forward.

It is a case of taking on that learning. As I have said, there are pros and cons to both the approaches that we have taken.

It is important that we work with local authorities on the projects that have not been successful this time round. We had 15 applications to the fund, 11 of which were successful, and we should see what work can be done to ensure that we continue to take those important projects forward.

The Scottish Futures Trust’s work with local authorities throughout the process has been really important. As I hope the committee picked up in last week’s evidence session, our local authority partners find its expertise and advice to be very helpful. We can take on that learning as we move forward; in any case, I want to do a full evaluation of the past year’s scheme in comparison with the previous year’s to determine how we take these things forward in future years.

It is important to get that feedback on exactly what the projects have delivered and whether they have delivered on the objectives as we would hope. The projects go through a rigorous assessment process anyway, so I hope that they will achieve those objectives. However, it is important that we get feedback.

As I said earlier, we have had two years of funding for which we have used the different allocation methods. It is important that we now take stock of the evidence that the committee has heard and received in relation to how those funds have operated and what they have delivered, as well as any individual feedback that you receive in your constituencies from people who live in the communities there. I am always open to hearing feedback and considering any learning for the future.

First, I will talk about the significant situation in which we find ourselves in relation to the budget. The finance secretary will bring forward the emergency budget in due course, but the fact is that we are working under significant constraints, and it is a difficult and challenging time for my own portfolio as well as across Government.

I believe that we are delivering against the objectives of the national islands plan in my portfolio and across Government as best we can. To deliver those objectives, we have the 13 strategic objectives and more than 100 commitments. There is not only the islands-specific funding in my portfolio but spend from across other Government departments—for example, there is spend on rural housing, which falls within Shona Robison’s portfolio. When you look at the £50 million that has been committed to the islands growth deal or other funding streams, you can see that we are doing the best that we can to deliver against the strategic objectives in the national islands plan.

I agree with you—it does. Indeed, that comes through in the evidence and the feedback that we get. It can make things very difficult, and I appreciate the difficulties that businesses have when they apply for our grant funding rounds, because of the tight timescales for turning things around. I talked earlier about the model that we adopted for the islands programme and why we adopted it—we did so to ensure that projects were deliverable in the timescales that we had. I am absolutely sympathetic to that, but unfortunately, it is not possible for us to open up multiyear rounds, because we do not have the clarity of the seven-year funding rounds that we previously had when we were a member of the EU.

To be honest, I have to agree that it would be. Unfortunately, however, we are not in a position to do that, because we do not have certainty of funding for future years. It is therefore simply not possible to deliver to that timescale. I am really sympathetic to those arguments; ideally, we would be running multiyear rounds, but, unfortunately, it is just not possible because of the yearly allocations that we are getting from the UK Government.

When we were members of the European Union, it was different, because we had the clarity of seven-year funding. That made it possible for us to plan things. I know that the situation is difficult for local authorities, but it is just not possible for us to consider doing that at the moment.