Seòmar agus comataidhean

It has not been yet. All the different Parliaments have been undertaking their own scrutiny processes, but, once we have been through all of that and the scrutiny is complete, we will look to engage, to see what changes to the frameworks process will be needed. The evidence that the committee has taken and the scrutiny that you have provided have been important in enabling us to see areas in the frameworks that could be improved.

I know that stakeholder engagement was an issue that came out strongly in all the evidence, and I mentioned the House of Lords report in the context of how we could better engage. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about stakeholder engagement. However, we need to strike a fine balance, because the different Governments need space for free and frank discussion.

It is important to highlight that the common frameworks process does not, and is not intended to, replace the stakeholder engagement that we currently undertake as part of policy development. We will still engage with stakeholders as we normally do, whether we are bringing forward legislative proposals or developing policy. I emphasise that we are not replacing stakeholder engagement, which is still a vital part of how we develop policy. The common frameworks process is another mechanism that sits alongside that.

Common frameworks are about collaboration on the basis that we are working together as equals. They offer a positive way of working. Provided that everyone adheres to the process, they can be a positive way forward.

I do not know whether officials want to come in on that point, in particular. I suppose that that goes back to what we discussed earlier. In some ways, existing structures are being built on. I am sure that George Burgess or Euan Page will be able to say more about what that means for their own workloads. On the whole, it is positive that there are ways that we can collaborate.

On the point about the transparency of the process, I know that those who provided evidence to the committee highlighted concerns, and I understand and recognise the stakeholder concerns about transparency. We are keen to get the committee’s feedback on what the scrutiny process could be like. We have set out how the frameworks that we currently have will be monitored and reviewed. We want to hear from the committee about ways in which we could improve the relaying of information and make that process more transparent. We are happy to consider any suggestions that result from the committee’s scrutiny.

On the reporting mechanisms that we currently have, the committee will be aware that we publish the draft communiqués from our interministerial group meetings. We also provide updates after those meetings on some of the areas that we have been working on or that we have been looking to discuss. Again, I am more than happy to take away any particular comments or suggestions once the committee has finished its scrutiny.

Absolutely, because, as much as we have an exclusions process, that threat still remains. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 is another example. All the concerns that we raised throughout the bill’s passage—particularly in relation to agriculture, which we felt should not have been part of that regime in the first place—have been completely ignored. That example has also been used. It is really frustrating and worrying that, as much as we commit to the process, there are pieces of legislation that are a threat not only to that process but to devolution.

It gives us serious concern. I think that we all recognise the need for common frameworks. We believe that we have put forward a really good model for how we can work together and manage policy divergence, and we have committed to the process. However, a series of acts have been introduced that seek to undermine that. That was clear in the report of the House of Lords committee and in its scrutiny of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which really undermines the work that we have tried to achieve through the common frameworks process. There is also the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which constrains the work that we have tried to take forward through common frameworks, and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which is currently progressing through the UK Parliament and which is causing us serious concern.

We have been told that common frameworks will be protected, but we have not yet been told how that will happen. It is really frustrating and concerning that, as much as we have committed to the process and as much as we think that it is a positive way to collaborate and move forward, it is continually undermined by pieces of legislation that seek to hamper the choices that we can take.

Unfortunately, the backstop for all these positions is that that is where we end up. However, it is important that we have the exclusions process in place in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Earlier, I gave an example of how we have been able to use that, although the process has not been without its issues in relation to the directive. When we introduced those regulations to the Scottish Parliament, there was a gap in implementation in terms of the items that we wished to see banned. The initial exclusion that the UK Government put forward was narrower than what we sought, and the UK regulations did not come into force until August, so there was an implementation gap of a few months. The process is important and we have the mechanisms by which we can try to exclude, but it is not perfect.

Some of that budget had been allocated to this year, and we are taking what we have learned from the islands bond consultation and engagement to see what progress we can make. We will be working through the process with regard to any future budget decisions—no doubt, the committee will be interrogating those decisions in more detail.

As far as the reduction is concerned, however, it is important to remember that our capital allocations have been significantly restrained; indeed, we received £175 million less than we had expected as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s spending review towards the tail end of last year. The capital allocations that we are getting are flat and they will fall over the course of the next few years. We have to prioritise as best we can within that context.

It is important not to forget that we have allocated resource funding to the islands programme and the islands plan, in particular. We have allocated an additional £10 million of resource to various projects, such as the appointment of six heritage and culture officers across the different areas and islands and the appointment of an innovation officer in the University of the Highlands and Islands. Those are just a couple of examples of how we are using that money. We are trying to use the funds that are available to us to deliver for our island communities.

I think that I alluded to that point in some of my responses to the initial questions. We cannot just consider my portfolio spend in isolation, because of the wider work that is happening across Government to help with the cost of living crisis. The budget for those interventions—whether those are through discretionary housing payments or what we are doing in relation to fuel poverty—will come from different portfolios. However, those interventions will still have an impact across rural Scotland and in our island communities and we are trying to deliver them as best we can.

There were a number of factors in that regard, some of which we discussed, I think, with the committee in my first appearance before you to talk about the budget. Around £20 million of funding was financial transactions and loans, and we had not been able to use financial transactions—I am sure that Sheetal Mehra will keep me right. If the Government is to offer loans, we need to do so on a commercial basis, and it simply was not possible to spend that funding. I cannot draw down allocations that I am not able to spend.

I have outlined the significant constraints that we face in relation to capital. I know that it was of great concern to the industry that the capital budget that was available for agriculture transformation was lower than it had been in previous years. There were all sorts of issues tied into that. For example, there were huge delays in getting equipment. There were huge backlogs. Those were not anyone’s fault—they were not the fault of industry or Government. We had to ensure that we used the resource that we had as best we could.