Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I think that it does strike that balance. Another benefit of the competitive model was that it enabled us to ensure that we aligned national priorities with the needs of our communities on the ground.

In response to the first question that I was asked, I spoke about a project that we funded to build a nursery in Orkney. I think that, during your evidence sessions, you have heard about that project’s impact on retaining the population in Orkney and how critical it was. The competitive model has benefits in relation to such projects, and the work that SFT did in working with local authorities and giving its expertise was helpful throughout that process.

As I said, the approach was modelled on the regeneration capital grant fund scheme because that model is more familiar to local authorities. There are pros and cons on both sides when it comes to whether to use the competitive model or the direct allocation model. I think that some of the projects that were successful in the rounds show that the competitive approach has delivered on the national priorities and on what our island communities need.

That is right. We are significantly constrained. Obviously, we could do a lot more if we had the full allocation that we believe we are entitled to, but, instead, we received £14 million. From the regulations that we passed earlier in the year, the committee will be aware of what we can fund. We can fund a broader range of activities now, which is good, but we still have the same budget, of course. The resources that we have significantly constrain our ability to do more.

The £10 million that has been allocated for this year is for the first track of the national test programme, which we have started to roll out. We have had the claim window for carbon audits. It is not possible for me to say right now exactly how much has been spent, because our schemes are, largely, demand led. The claim window will also open soon for soil testing, I believe. That is largely what the funding this year has been allocated for.

For the second track, we have talked about doing a more focused pilot project with a number of farmers, to test what conditionality would look like. The first part of that was about trying to engage members in a survey to be undertaken over the summer. That closed towards the end of August, I think.

It has been about getting that roll-out—offering the incentives for people to engage in the variety of different measures and get a baseline understanding of where their businesses are on climate performance at the moment.

In relation to how the remaining £41 million will be allocated in the next couple of years, carbon audits and soil testing are just one element of that. I initially made the announcement, and issues were raised through the agriculture reform implementation oversight board about the importance of animal health and biodiversity audits. We have not been able to roll out biodiversity audits across the country in the first part of the programme, because their stage of development has not allowed that. However, we are looking to add that element to the programme. We also have a working group that is looking at measures that can be taken on animal health.

Those are key areas that will be added to the programme as we progress through the next couple of years. We also have the livestock performance feedback. It is expected that the programme will grow over the next few years.

Just by their very nature, it is our island communities and rural areas that are suffering the most from the cost of living crisis. With fuel costs, for example, the fact that so many people in those areas are dependent on oil and other regulated fuels for heating means that the capping of energy prices does not really help with their circumstances. Our rural and island communities are facing particular issues and challenges, and we are listening to and trying to get to grips with what they are telling us.

With the national islands plan, we have an islands strategic group as well as a national islands plan delivery group. Through those groups, we are engaging with the plan’s implementation, of course, but we are also seeking to ensure that the objectives and commitments in the plan are still relevant. It is therefore important that we hear about any potential issues.

We have made one change to the national islands plan delivery group. In launching the young islanders network in Orkney over the summer, I invited those young people on to the delivery group, and their representation on the group will be critical to our getting as a wide a representative input as we can. It is really important for me to hear that feedback. As I have said, our islands team officials are based on islands, too, because we need to hear what the people on our islands and rural areas think are their priorities.

The overall budget savings from my portfolio that have been outlined total around £61.5 million. I reiterate that I cannot stress enough to the committee how challenging the position is in my portfolio and across Government, and that we are trying to tackle some of the challenges that we face.

I just want to make clear to the committee that the vast majority of savings that have been put forward in my portfolio are from ring-fenced funding—although the sum has been offered as a saving, it ultimately has to come back to the portfolio because it cannot be spent in other ways. Some of the other savings that have been put forward are in relation to re-forecasts of some of our demand-led schemes and controls on recruitment.

We still try to deliver on our priorities as best we possibly can, while recognising the significant challenges that we face. I hope that that gives a broad outline of the savings that have been put forward.

Yes, that is right. The funding will come back to the portfolio.