Chamber and committees

I am not ruling out future allocations, but I come back to my point about the CSR, the RSR and the broad funding envelopes. They are not budgets in and of themselves, so more detail will come forward on that.

The islands plan, in essence, brings together all the other pieces of work across Government. Obviously, islands is not a policy area on its own; there are many areas and interests across Government, including housing, that impact on our islands. I hope that that came across in my evidence session with the committee on the national islands plan, which, I think, was in June. The reason why we have an islands team, and why my role in Government exists, is to ensure that we consider any potential impacts on our islands and rural communities across all policy areas.

We need to ensure that all the objectives that we have identified are still relevant, and a lot of them are. There is one on population—you touched on housing and transport—and one on fuel poverty. All those things are vitally important.

I attended the meeting of the convention of the Highlands and Islands in Oban at the start of this week, and we talked about a lot of those issues. When I am out on visits, housing is often identified as one of the key issues, if not the key issue, that people face at the moment. It was also identified as such at the convention’s meeting. I visited Orkney in the summer and heard exactly the same thing. We do not necessarily see a jobs shortage in rural and island areas, but there is a lack of affordable housing for people to stay in our communities.

That is where our objectives are still relevant. It is also not up to the islands programme in and of itself to fund those interventions; that is where the work that has been taken forward on housing is critical. We are developing the remote, rural and islands housing action plan and I am happy to follow up with colleagues if the committee wants more information on that. We know that there are particular challenges in our rural and island areas that we need to address, and our objectives are relevant, but the other interventions that we are making across Government are also important. It is not just about the islands programme.

You are right in relation to the NFUS’s co-convening role. The ARIOB exists because we want to work with industry and with our farmers and crofters to develop future policy. That is critical to me, because I want to make sure that we get it right and that we deliver a policy that we can implement and that will deliver everything that we hope it will in relation to emissions reductions, food security and enhancing nature.

Everyone in the group is an individual, and they will have different perspectives and views. There are things that we will have to do as a Government that not everybody will necessarily agree with, whether that is because of legislative constraints or budgetary constraints. However, that co-development is really important in ensuring that they feed into that process.

First of all, I note that those in our islands team are predominantly based on islands and live within those communities, so they are tuned in to that feedback. George Burgess has made that point to the committee previously. I think that everyone on the islands programme investment panel has had experience of either living or working on islands. That is really important.

It is vital that we do what we can to hear the different voices that are out there. If the committee feels that that is not being done adequately and has any suggestions about how we do that better, I would be more than happy to take away that feedback and learning.

Alasdair Allan makes a good point, and I go back to the point that I made in response to Jenni Minto’s questions. We want the projects that are delivered to have an impact on communities and to grow organically, and we want to work alongside communities in delivering them. I hope that we are getting at least some of that right, but I am more than happy to hear from the committee on that issue.

I am really sympathetic to the points that were made by local authorities last week, because I recognise how challenging that can be. In my portfolio, we will aim to make the processes for the various funding schemes as clear as possible and not too cumbersome for local authorities. As I said in relation to the islands programme, we want to work with local authorities and, through partners such as the SFT, ensure that they have the capacity that is needed. I am more than happy to take away that feedback.

However, things are sometimes outwith our control. For example, the UK Government’s levelling-up fund cut across the islands programme when applications were being made. We have also seen that in the marine space. Even though that is a devolved area, the UK Government has provided £100 million of direct spend without—

We have taken different approaches to other funds that we have run. Previously, there were three separate strands to the islands programme, which were allocated in a number of different ways. It is important that we take the learning from that. I know that there are other funds that are directly available for communities to bid straight into. I think that it depends on the fund and its objectives. There are other programmes, such as the one that we have just done, whereby the local authority is the lead partner.

It is important to have that mix. We certainly do not want to cut people out of the process. We want to make sure that the projects that come forward are ones that will genuinely provide what communities need. It is not for us to dictate to communities what infrastructure they need. All our island communities are unique and different in their own way. Some of the challenges that they face are similar, but some are different. Therefore, it is really important that the projects that are brought forward are organic and come from communities.

I really value the feedback that we get and the learning that we have taken from the previous rounds of the programme, as that will enable us to ensure that, when we bring forward future years of funding, we deliver it in a way that works—most importantly, for our island communities. Our approach is not set in stone. The evidence that the committee took was important. It is important for me to hear about how communities found the process so that we can take that learning into future years.

That was another point that I took away from the committee’s evidence session last week. I understand the pressures that local authorities are under in that regard. The committee also heard about how the variety of funds that are out there can be a challenge in and of itself.

However, working with the Scottish Futures Trust has been helpful in that regard, too. We wanted to work with the SFT on the latest round of funding because of its experience and expertise in delivering infrastructure and working with partners. It was really good to hear the feedback last week about the advice and assistance that local authorities have been able to get from the SFT. That was really important. We are happy to work with local authorities on capacity issues, because we recognise the challenges that can exist in that regard.

I come back to the point about why we selected the model that was used for the regeneration capital grant fund. We wanted to ensure that the process was not completely alien to, or overly burdensome on, local authorities. We took that approach because we hoped that that would make things a bit easier. However, I recognise the challenges that were mentioned last week. Such feedback is really important.

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.