Chamber and committees

The island communities impact assessments have been a really important tool for doing exactly that, because they put the onus on policy teams to consider island communities. I am sure that the team that is here with me can go into more detail about their engagement, but they engage extensively across the Scottish Government and with other policy teams to ensure that we are considering island communities and feeding that information in. As you can see from the national islands plan, our communities do not operate in silos. The plan affects every single part of Government, as well as the relevant authorities.

I highlight that we have updated the guidance on how the impact assessments should be undertaken and we have provided more materials and information, including videos, based on the feedback that we received from the process of engaging with policy teams. The islands team stands ready to work with any public authorities that are undertaking the impact assessments, to ensure that they are taking the right things into consideration and using the assessments as they should be used.

An impact assessment certainly should not be a tick-box exercise, and the guidance specifically says that the assessments should not be seen as a tick-box exercise. We have examples of where island communities impact assessments have been used and policies have been adjusted to reflect that. The definition of fuel poverty was changed on the back of an island communities impact assessment, in order to recognise the significant impact that there can be for island communities.

I certainly do not see the assessments as a tick-box exercise. As I say, the guidance specifically states that they should not be. However, the team engages extensively to ensure that the relevant authorities that should be undertaking the assessments are doing them well and are considering the findings from them.

If there is disagreement in relation to that or about how the assessment has been undertaken, the process for addressing that is also set out in the Island Communities Impact Assessments (Publication and Review of Decisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020.

There is a process for that, which is set out in the regulations.

One of our key consultations in recent times has been for the islands bond, on which there was extensive engagement and consultation with island communities. During that consultation, feelings about the bond were made quite clear, but what also came through were some really helpful and positive suggestions for trying to tackle depopulation or retain populations in different island communities. That was a really positive part of the process, and we have used those ideas and suggestions to develop practical policy tests to see whether they might be effective.

As for an example of proposals that were not taken on board, I would have to turn to officials for that information. I do not know what examples there are in that respect, but I can say that, on the back of the consultation that I mentioned, we definitely had some good and positive suggestions that we have listened to and tried to implement.

We will need to see how the project develops, but you are right that CDOs have been playing a critical role so far. I return to a point that Francesco Sindico made earlier. What has been brilliant about the project has been young people being able to return to their communities on the islands after studying on the mainland. They are embedded in those communities, so they are in the best position to try to build community engagement and involvement with the plan.

I mentioned the project in the Western Isles. Other projects were undertaken where we know that childcare can be an issue—we are taking forward a childcare pilot project on Mull—and I can write to the committee with more information on them.

Members of the committee will, no doubt, be aware that we have undertaken a consultation in relation to the HPMA process and that we will analyse its results. We talked earlier about island communities impact assessments, and a partial one was undertaken for that process. We have to ensure that we are taking into account those other impacts, and we will do so through the processes that we have specified, as well as undertaking our own engagements throughout.

I was in Shetland last week to meet with people in the industries concerned to hear their views on that process and its potential impacts, and to listen to people’s concerns, which is essentially what we have to do. We also have to ensure that we are listening through the consultation exercise and that we give the full analysis of the responses that we have received before we set out the next steps.

The committee members will be well aware of the concerns. We have had a number of debates in relation to that subject recently—Beatrice Wishart had a members’ business debate in which she outlined her constituents’ concerns about the HPMA process. We are listening to those concerns because we have to consider the national islands plan’s objectives around the importance of populations as well as all the other strategic objectives that I have set out.

We aim for there not to be conflicting policies in the portfolio. Obviously, with agriculture, fisheries, land reform and forestry sitting in the one portfolio—you will no doubt be aware of the various pieces of legislation that will be introduced relating to those areas—we have to ensure that those policies are aligned and working for our island communities.

We have had the consultation; we need to go through the process of analysis before setting out our next steps. You can see from the commitments that we have set out in the national islands plan, which cover 13 strategic objectives, that work is on-going.