Seòmar agus comataidhean

It adds to the cluttered landscape and it cuts across some of the objectives that we would like to achieve. Among the different pots of funding, the prioritisation can be completely different. When we were members of the EU, the Highlands and Islands was a high-priority area for funding due to its remote and rural nature and the specific challenges that our rural communities face. That area was a high priority when we were in the EU, but it is certainly not as high a priority if you look at spending through the shared prosperity fund. Those allocations all fell far short of what we should and would have received were we still members of the EU. Fisheries is a devolved area, so if there is money there, it should be given to the Scottish Government to distribute in line with our own funding priorities.

Yes, I have. I make regular representations to my counterparts in the UK Government, as do other ministers. I think that the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise has been dealing with that in relation to the shared prosperity funding. We regularly make those representations.

If we look at agriculture as an example of this—indeed, the term “agflation” has been used—we will see a tremendous increase in input costs across the bit, whether for feed, fuel or fertiliser. For some of those areas, it is not possible for us to make meaningful interventions, because the main levers rest with the UK Government. We have tried to do what we can, both within the portfolio and across the Scottish Government, to mitigate those pressures, but, without those full powers, I am unable to do everything. It is just not possible to take the meaningful action that we know is needed. Obviously, we welcome the package that the UK Government has introduced—that is, the package of energy reliefs—but, unfortunately, it is for only six months. We do not know what is going to happen after that, which will be of little comfort to those who are really struggling at the moment.

Yes, that is why it is not possible for us to do that. We get indicative allocations.

I should make it clear that what we see through the capital and resource spending reviews are not budgets; those figures are based on a number of assumptions, and we still have to go through the normal annual budget cycles. I should also emphasise that we do not have any clarity on funding beyond 2025; it is therefore not possible for us to plan in detail beyond that point, because we do not know what our allocations will be. What we have set out in the capital and resource spending reviews are the overall funding envelopes, but we will still have to work through the detail when we know what the actual allocations will be.

It was interesting to go through the evidence that the committee heard last week. We ran the competitive model for funding this year and the direct allocation process the year before. It is important for us to hear feedback and find out how local authorities are finding the process.

As with anything, there are pros and cons to both approaches, but it is all learning that we can take forward as we look to develop the islands programme in future years. I know that some local authorities will probably have received less through the competitive process than they would have received through the direct allocation process, whereas other local authorities will have received more. In some instances, it was quite a significant chunk of funding. Orkney Islands Council, for example, was allocated £1.5 million, which was over and above what it would have received through a direct allocation model. It is important for us to listen to the feedback to determine how we take the programme forward.

We decided to go with the competitive funding model this year to ensure that we delivered the funding as effectively and efficiently as we could within the available timescale. I know from evidence that the committee has heard that there were concerns about the local government elections, but we want to ensure that there is enough time to develop bids and that those bids are going to be successful and deliverable in the timescale to which we are working.

The model that we are using was built on the model for the regeneration capital grant fund, with which local authorities are familiar. That is why we adopted it. However, it is important that we take this learning into future years.

I would not want anyone to think that the work that has been undertaken in relation to those projects has been wasted. I do not underestimate for a moment how much work goes into preparing and submitting such bids. There were various issues around that, which the committee heard about last week.

One of the key aspects of our work with the SFT has been ensuring that there is on-going dialogue to see how we can get bids that were not successful this time into a position whereby they could potentially be successful in future rounds of the programme. It is important that we continue that work and that dialogue.

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.