³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The funding that it has provided is the same level as last year’s.

For clarification, I know that that was an ask of the committee, but, at the time when we were considering the policy, there was not a £5 million allocation in the budget for that year to develop the policy, because we were undertaking the initial work and engagement on the islands bond.

Initially, there was a £300,000 budget allocation for the islands bond policy. From the extensive engagement that we undertook, we heard loud and clear that it was not something on which island communities wanted to move forward. We utilised the funding that was available at that point to deliver the practical policy test, which I think I have talked about previously in the committee. The decision was based on the outcome of engagement that took place on the islands and on ideas that people thought would help to tackle issues such as depopulation.

Within that, we had about 11 different projects under way. I discussed previously in committee a piece of work that had been undertaken. The biggest portion of the funding—I think that it was about £250,000—was for work on a skills and population pilot that was undertaken with Skills Development Scotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and various local authorities.

I am sure that Erica Clarkson can come in with more information. Evaluation of that work is still to take place and will soon be under way. That work was done in three local authority areas and looked at bespoke solutions that could be created around skills. Erica Clarkson might have more information about those projects.

The £5 million was an overall figure that would have been used for islands bonds had they progressed. In developing the policy, we had to go through the engagement exercises.

As I was saying just now and as we have talked about previously, we are looking at these decisions in an annual budget cycle. If we had decided to pursue that policy and had proceeded with it, the budget as you see it today and the priorities within it would probably have been different. However, it was decided that we would not move forward with that policy. That is why we undertook the work on the different tests, which are helping to inform the interventions that will best address depopulation.

We are still waiting on the publication of the addressing depopulation action plan, which is being led by the social justice portfolio. I am responsible for the rural and islands element of that plan, and we hope that we will be in a position to publish it shortly.

It has been important for us to listen to that engagement and then to undertake this work, which will help to inform our actions as part of that plan so that we know that the interventions that we make to address depopulation will be meaningful and have the impact that we all want.

As Erica Clarkson said, we are still to undertake the evaluation of that project. However, this is where the funding of other elements that we have undertaken has been important. We have helped to fund the community resettlement officer positions as part of that work.

Funding for the addressing depopulation action plan does not come just from interventions from my portfolio; the social justice portfolio also contains funding for that. Again, that is all part of our considerations of what we are looking at as part of the addressing depopulation action plan.

Ultimately, what we are getting from the UK Government equates to a real-terms cut to our budget. The vast majority of our budget comes from what we used to get when we were members of the EU, so we are largely dependent on that, as it makes up the vast majority of our funding. Of course, that has a wider impact.

The issue comes back to what I said in my opening comments about where we were at the start in relation to settlements across the piece. We are facing very difficult budget choices, and difficult decisions must be made, but all of that is exacerbated by the fact that we have a lack of clarity and no certainty on what we will receive in the future, as well as the fact that we are receiving a flat settlement from the UK Government.

I would be happy to outline that. The pillar 1 funds are exactly as you have described. We have voluntary coupled support, with the beef scheme and the sheep scheme within that, and there is the fruit and vegetable aid scheme. I want to be absolutely clear that those budgets remain unchanged—they have not been cut. There is £48 million allocated to the voluntary coupled support, and £2.7 million relates to the fruit and vegetable aid scheme.

The element of that budget that has been reduced is the line that previously related to common market organisation. That budget line covered several things, including the school milk scheme and the public intervention and private storage aid scheme. To give you an example from one of those schemes, we transferred the school milk budget to education, and the scheme is now funded directly by education, with local authorities charged with delivering it. We have used the private storage aid scheme only once, in relation to pig meat during Covid.

It is up against the forecast spend, and I believe that that still allows us to increase uptake from where we are at the moment. Last year, when I was before the committee, we were looking at very low figures for the number of people undertaking carbon audits and soil tests. That figure jumped up towards the end of the claim period at the end of last February, and we have seen an increase in uptake, too.

We have ensured that what we have in the budget can meet the current levels that we are seeing, but there is also capacity for uptake of those schemes. I just want to reiterate that that support is still there and I very much encourage farmers and crofters to take it up.

I think that George Burgess wants to come in on that.

I want to be clear about this—I know that this will have been updated since the committee saw the budget papers. When I talked about the £15 million that we have agreed with the Deputy First Minister will be switched from resource to capital, this is an example of the funding that we have been able to move in that way. The allocation is still £3 million, but it is now capital rather than resource funding. After all, that is where the greatest need is. It shows why the agreement to switch that funding has been so important.

As for what has happened with the agricultural transformation fund over the past couple of years, when it was first used, over the course of 2022-23, it was £5 million. At the time, the money came through the sustainable capital agricultural grant scheme. It was used for more efficient slurry-spreading equipment and, indeed, for prioritising that spending on slurry, given the water environment regulations that had been introduced and the requirements that farmers were being expected to meet. In the light of all of that, we felt that it should be prioritised.

However, despite its being a £5 million fund and even though £4.6 million of it had been committed, the actual spend in the end was around £3 million. Over the course of last year, we made another pot of £5 million available to the fund. It was channelled through the agri-environment climate scheme, with the focus on slurry storage, and I think that just over £2 million was spent. Although this is a reduction, it should be seen against what we think that we can spend and what the actual spend has been over the past couple of years.

I am sorry—I said that that was why we needed it as capital spending. If we wanted to fund items similar to those that we had funded in previous years, we would need that funding to be capital rather than resource.