Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a case of taking on that learning. As I have said, there are pros and cons to both the approaches that we have taken.

It is important that we work with local authorities on the projects that have not been successful this time round. We had 15 applications to the fund, 11 of which were successful, and we should see what work can be done to ensure that we continue to take those important projects forward.

The Scottish Futures Trust’s work with local authorities throughout the process has been really important. As I hope the committee picked up in last week’s evidence session, our local authority partners find its expertise and advice to be very helpful. We can take on that learning as we move forward; in any case, I want to do a full evaluation of the past year’s scheme in comparison with the previous year’s to determine how we take these things forward in future years.

It is important to get that feedback on exactly what the projects have delivered and whether they have delivered on the objectives as we would hope. The projects go through a rigorous assessment process anyway, so I hope that they will achieve those objectives. However, it is important that we get feedback.

As I said earlier, we have had two years of funding for which we have used the different allocation methods. It is important that we now take stock of the evidence that the committee has heard and received in relation to how those funds have operated and what they have delivered, as well as any individual feedback that you receive in your constituencies from people who live in the communities there. I am always open to hearing feedback and considering any learning for the future.

First, I will talk about the significant situation in which we find ourselves in relation to the budget. The finance secretary will bring forward the emergency budget in due course, but the fact is that we are working under significant constraints, and it is a difficult and challenging time for my own portfolio as well as across Government.

I believe that we are delivering against the objectives of the national islands plan in my portfolio and across Government as best we can. To deliver those objectives, we have the 13 strategic objectives and more than 100 commitments. There is not only the islands-specific funding in my portfolio but spend from across other Government departments—for example, there is spend on rural housing, which falls within Shona Robison’s portfolio. When you look at the £50 million that has been committed to the islands growth deal or other funding streams, you can see that we are doing the best that we can to deliver against the strategic objectives in the national islands plan.

The £10 million that has been allocated for this year is for the first track of the national test programme, which we have started to roll out. We have had the claim window for carbon audits. It is not possible for me to say right now exactly how much has been spent, because our schemes are, largely, demand led. The claim window will also open soon for soil testing, I believe. That is largely what the funding this year has been allocated for.

For the second track, we have talked about doing a more focused pilot project with a number of farmers, to test what conditionality would look like. The first part of that was about trying to engage members in a survey to be undertaken over the summer. That closed towards the end of August, I think.

It has been about getting that roll-out—offering the incentives for people to engage in the variety of different measures and get a baseline understanding of where their businesses are on climate performance at the moment.

In relation to how the remaining £41 million will be allocated in the next couple of years, carbon audits and soil testing are just one element of that. I initially made the announcement, and issues were raised through the agriculture reform implementation oversight board about the importance of animal health and biodiversity audits. We have not been able to roll out biodiversity audits across the country in the first part of the programme, because their stage of development has not allowed that. However, we are looking to add that element to the programme. We also have a working group that is looking at measures that can be taken on animal health.

Those are key areas that will be added to the programme as we progress through the next couple of years. We also have the livestock performance feedback. It is expected that the programme will grow over the next few years.

Just by their very nature, it is our island communities and rural areas that are suffering the most from the cost of living crisis. With fuel costs, for example, the fact that so many people in those areas are dependent on oil and other regulated fuels for heating means that the capping of energy prices does not really help with their circumstances. Our rural and island communities are facing particular issues and challenges, and we are listening to and trying to get to grips with what they are telling us.

With the national islands plan, we have an islands strategic group as well as a national islands plan delivery group. Through those groups, we are engaging with the plan’s implementation, of course, but we are also seeking to ensure that the objectives and commitments in the plan are still relevant. It is therefore important that we hear about any potential issues.

We have made one change to the national islands plan delivery group. In launching the young islanders network in Orkney over the summer, I invited those young people on to the delivery group, and their representation on the group will be critical to our getting as a wide a representative input as we can. It is really important for me to hear that feedback. As I have said, our islands team officials are based on islands, too, because we need to hear what the people on our islands and rural areas think are their priorities.

The overall budget savings from my portfolio that have been outlined total around £61.5 million. I reiterate that I cannot stress enough to the committee how challenging the position is in my portfolio and across Government, and that we are trying to tackle some of the challenges that we face.

I just want to make clear to the committee that the vast majority of savings that have been put forward in my portfolio are from ring-fenced funding—although the sum has been offered as a saving, it ultimately has to come back to the portfolio because it cannot be spent in other ways. Some of the other savings that have been put forward are in relation to re-forecasts of some of our demand-led schemes and controls on recruitment.

We still try to deliver on our priorities as best we possibly can, while recognising the significant challenges that we face. I hope that that gives a broad outline of the savings that have been put forward.

Yes, that is right. The funding will come back to the portfolio.

No problem. On your first point, I clarify that the funding will come back to the portfolio. I will discuss with the Deputy First Minister when and how that will happen. It will have to be spent on the ring-fenced purpose. It is ring-fenced funding and cannot be spent in any other area, and it has to be returned to the portfolio—we are talking about the £33 million of savings that had been identified.

As I said, the capital allocations that we have been given are flat and falling. The funding that we would expect to receive in future years is coming through as resource, not capital, so we face particular issues in that regard. I know how vital capital spend is. The first round of the sustainable agriculture capital grant scheme was very successful. We faced really constrained budgets over the past financial year, which is why we had to target that funding, with a particular focus on slurry, given the new regulations. We allocated the full £5 million of the agriculture transformation fund to that, too.

I emphasise that the savings that have been put forward do not impact on any current spend or on the national test programme, to which we have committed £51 million over this year and the next two years. We are committed to maintaining those levels of funding.

Yes. We set out those commitments in our manifesto and in our vision for agriculture, in which we talk about introducing 50 per cent conditionality by 2025. That commitment is still there.

I will be happy to keep the committee informed as plans for the commission develop. I am not able to provide too much more information on that today, because we are committed to timescales in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 in relation to when a good food nation plan will be introduced. Given the nature of the food commission as set out in the legislation, we will be working to establish the commission on a similar timescale to that for the development of the plan.

The budget that we have projected for the food commission is based largely on that of similar-sized Government bodies. We believe those figures to be representative of the size of the food commission and what it will be expected to deliver. As I say, I am not able to give much more detail on that today, but I would be happy to keep the committee informed as things develop.