Chamber and committees

I also highlight the funding for energy efficiency measures of up to £38,000 in the croft house grant this year. That is particular to crofting, but such measures are important. A number of other Government-led schemes are also happening, such as the fuel insecurity fund area-based schemes. I am more than happy to provide further information on those schemes to the committee.

In fact, the Minister for Transport also attends some of those meetings. There used to be a transport and islands group, and it makes sense that we do not do that work in isolation, so her attendance has become a regular part of those meetings. I want to provide reassurance about that.

I am confident that that is happening, because, as we have said in relation to the guidance and what we look for in project applications, we have a strong weighting towards projects that deliver against the national islands plan’s objectives, of which addressing fuel poverty is one.

We know that there are significant issues there, but I highlight that there is funding available other than through the islands programme. For example, we supported a number of recent initiatives through the islands cost crisis emergency fund. We provided £1.4 million of funding last year and supplemented that with another £1 million this year to address the most critical need, because we know about the increased costs that people who live on our islands face. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to provide a breakdown to the committee of how that funding is being spent.

In essence, we wanted to make sure that we got that money to local authorities as quickly as possible, for them to spend as they saw fit. In Shetland, it has been used to fund free school breakfasts, and it has been used to continue or supplement existing work in other island areas. I am happy to provide more information on that, if it would be helpful.

The Bew review funds are ring fenced for agriculture. You will be aware that we set out in the overall programme how the £51 million of funding over three years was going to be returned to the portfolio. I do not know the specific figure that you refer to, or in what year that became apparent. Is that in relation to the figures that we discussed previously?

I point to what we have already published on that. We do not have the exact details of what will be involved in a future scheme, but we have tried to share our thinking in that regard, which gives a general direction as to the measures that we will consider, including in future support. We have also set out the route map and timeline for when more information will become available to people.

Alongside the route map that we published earlier this year, we published the list of measures, but it is by no means a definitive list and it is not final. I think that there are links in the online publications for people to provide us with feedback and information. The list sets out some examples of how the different measures can interact and what that would mean for different types of business. It also outlines some of the measures that we might include as part of final support. It does not cover all sectors, because we know that more work needs to be done.

I emphasise that, as I have already stated, there will be no cliff edges in support. We have said that the schemes that people are currently on will continue until we transition at various points. That is all set out in the route map.

Although we cannot set out the detail of a scheme, we have set out what our thinking is at the moment in order to give some clarity and direction so that people know what we are considering for the future.

No, we have not.

Yes. I hear the concerns about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I do not think that it has ever produced the numbers that we need for the industry in Scotland. From the discussions that I have had, it seems that the availability of workforce continues to be an issue, as well as the various issues with the scheme itself.

Yes. It will be on the horizon, particularly in relation to the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and any potential impacts of that. Obviously, we are not yet at the point of bringing forward the detail of future schemes, but we will need to have those discussions further down the line. That has continued to concern us from the start of the Subsidy Control Bill process and right through it. A lot of our concerns were not really resolved during the passage of that legislation, so those concerns very much remain.

It is not anticipated that it would have any funding implications at the moment, because the strategy would not, in and of itself, require to be funded. It is more about how we better utilise the resource that we already have available in relation to science and how we use it in Scotland. Ultimately, the science and innovation strategy is about how we can work more collaboratively across the piece in Scotland.

Within the marine directorate, we have a fantastic marine science resource. We also have the aquarium and the marine lab. It is about how we can better utilise the assets and people that we have by working with other institutions and academia across Scotland. We really want to ensure, as far as we can, that Scotland becomes a global leader in marine research. It is only by collaborating better and using those resources more wisely right across the piece that we can hope to achieve that.

We believe that we have not received resource that we should, and would, have received had we remained members of the European Union. We currently have £14 million a year as part of the marine fund Scotland. However, we might consider what other nations in the EU receive through the new strand of EU funding, which is the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund.

We can look, in particular, at nations that are similar in population size to Scotland—one of the better comparisons is Denmark, which has the same population but a smaller marine area, and a smaller marine industry and sector as a whole. On average, Denmark is receiving £25 million a year in comparison with what we receive. It also has seven-year continuity for that funding—it is £25 million each year over seven years, whereas we do not have multiyear funding. We simply receive the £14 million allocation, so we believe that we are being significantly short-changed in that regard.