Seòmar agus comataidhean

It was important that we consulted on the raising of the ceiling and that the consultation was, quite rightly, a separate process from consideration of raising the levy, because they are distinct processes. It is important that we set out that process and that we undertook the consultation in the way that we did.

First, QMS is not a Government-funded organisation. The information that you ask for can be interrogated by the committee or by any member of the public in QMS’s audited accounts, which are published annually.

Again, QMS would put a proposal to me and then it would be up to Scottish ministers to agree on it one way or the other. I am just trying to set out how that fits into the overall process.

Again, we are going down all sorts of different roads here and speculating about what might or might not happen. We have not been in that position in the past. The proposals are put to Scottish ministers for approval.

QMS is a responsible body, and I know that it would undertake that engagement. As I have said, I know that, in this case, that engagement has already started. I do not think that QMS needs any prodding from me or to be told to engage with the industry—it is doing that now. It is in its best interests to do that and to have a good relationship with levy payers.

That is not a discussion that I have had with QMS.

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.