Chamber and committees

No problem. As I said, during the past couple of years of the programme we have been learning as we went and have been trying to modify the process. I remember from discussions that we have had about the islands programme that it is always difficult to look at the pros and cons of a direct award versus a competitive bid, and that is why it was interesting to hear the evidence from local authorities that the committee received about that.

There are drawbacks with direct award because, if we did that, the allocations could be a lot smaller for some areas, which means that they would not be able to take forward some of the larger projects that we have been able to fund.

On the competitive bid process, we have already said that we have made various changes to the guidance and to the process to streamline it. We have also removed the ceiling on applications so that local authorities can decide whether they want to take through a large project or would prefer to submit applications for a number of smaller projects. That process gives us overall strategic oversight. As Erica Clarkson outlined, we can also ensure that we are delivering against the objectives of the national islands plan.

Ultimately, we would not have been able to fund some of the big projects that have been part of the programme during the past couple of years if it had not been for the competitive bid process. Therefore, although I understand the calls for direct award, I think that we have greater flexibility in a competitive bid model.

As Erica Clarkson said, we are always keen to learn from what is happening on other projects elsewhere, but I do not know whether that is what you meant about sharing the learning from projects.

It cannot be seen in such a straightforward way, because, right now, there are huge population disparities even between islands. The Orkney mainland saw the biggest increase, and the Shetland outer isles saw a decrease. You are absolutely right that there are problem areas, and it is important that we work with the economic agencies and local authorities in those areas through the convention of the south of Scotland and the convention of the Highlands and Islands.

I mentioned community settlement officers, who have been based in areas where there are particular problems. We have part-funded that initiative, together with HIE and the local authorities. Again, not all of that funding comes from my budget—there is a role for the population team in that. It is about how, together, we best utilise that funding.

I cannot pre-empt what is going to come through the addressing depopulation action plan, but it will look at the actions that we are already taking, potential new actions that could make a big impact going forward, and, importantly, how we are working at a local level to tackle the issues in specific areas. I hope that that answers your point.

Are you referring to the resource spending review and the capital spending review?

I understand the concerns about that, because we want to make sure that there is a pipeline of projects going forward. Of course, we continue to work closely with other bodies, and we are aware that the islands programme can be used as an enabler or stepping stone for other funds. It also funds things in relation to enabling infrastructure for housing that the more homes fund would not fund in and of itself. It is hugely important in that regard. If the situation remains as it is at the moment and the capital funding is not there, it gives us a couple of opportunities to further refine the application process. Of course, we will continue to work with the Scottish Futures Trust to ensure that that pipeline of work continues. We cannot forget that the delivery of on-going projects still has to be undertaken, so we will continue with that work as well.

To go back to what I said previously, I know how important the islands programme is, but it is not the only capital or infrastructure spend that happens across our islands. There will be continued investment, whether that is in housing or in other areas across Government. There is also the funding that is coming through the islands growth deal. We need to remember all of that other spend in the round when we think about the spend that takes place in our islands.

Applicants are specifically asked how they will implement the community wealth building principles into projects and ensure that they are considered and built into the process.

Do you have any specific examples, Erica? Community asset transfers have been an example of that.

Those figures relate to what has been set out in the resource and capital spending reviews. They are the overall funding envelopes, not budgets in and of themselves. We will be working through the budget process. There is no capital funding associated with the islands programme for the coming financial year, but we are working through the budget process, so that could change. That is the expected funding envelope, although resource funding is expected.

I emphasise that the islands programme is not the only means by which there is investment in islands. Investment outwith the islands programme has a strong and positive impact on our islands, which has been shown through some of the projects that have taken place. We cannot forget about other Government investment that takes place in our islands, including in housing, digital, health and social care. We must also bear in mind the islands growth deal, which is £50 million of investment from the Scottish and UK Governments over the course of the next 10 years for a number of pieces of work. It is important to bear that other spending in mind.

You raise some important points, which came out clearly in the evidence that the committee heard previously. I welcome the work that the committee did, which is, I hope, reflected in the feedback that the process this year has been more straightforward and more streamlined than it was previously. Getting that feedback helped us to make those changes to the application process for the islands programme.

The work that the islands team has been doing with the Scottish Futures Trust has been helpful in trying to minimise the burden of the islands programme as much as possible. Over the past few years, we have made refinements to the application process for the programme. In and of itself, that has helped, because everybody is becoming more familiar with the process of applying to it. I would like to think that that, in a sense, eases the pressure on local authorities. The SFT also provides guidance, help and support through the process, which local authorities have broadly welcomed, too.

The cluttered funding landscape is a difficult issue to resolve because I do not hold all the levers in my portfolio for the other funds that impact islands. We have talked about the remote, rural and islands housing action plan as well as other schemes that are funded through other portfolios. I reflect back on the response that I gave to Alasdair Allan about the work that the islands team and the SFT are doing together to minimise the clutter as much as possible. That has involved working with other policy teams across the Scottish Government to ensure that there are no conflicting deadlines, because we recognise the pressures that local authorities are under when it comes to applying to the funds and we want to ease that burden as much as it is within our power to do and make the process as easy as we can.

Is there anything that you want to add, Erica?

Absolutely. Childcare is a big issue even in terms of the wider challenges of child poverty and fuel poverty on our islands, where people are disproportionately affected because the cost of living is so much higher. We have funded a specific childcare pilot with the Mull and Iona Community Trust to see how we can address those problems and develop solutions that work for our island areas. We will be keen to take any learning from that.