³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I will turn to Erica Clarkson in a moment to talk about the specific issue of funding.

I absolutely echo what you said at the start about the contribution that is being made by the development officers, because they have been doing fantastic work. They are embedded in the communities, and that has been fantastic. I have had the chance to meet them and speak directly to them and it has been great to see the work that they are undertaking. The carbon-neutral islands project takes a bottom-up approach, ensuring that communities are involved and are part of the process from the very start.

Regarding the long-term funding, you are probably aware that we provided an update on the project in January this year. We have undertaken the carbon audits and, following on from that work, each island involved in the project has published a climate change action plan.

The next stage in the process is to look at the investment strategies for the future. Public funding will never be able to fill all the gaps in the work on climate and nature, much as we might want it to, which is why private investment and other sources of investment will be important. The work that is taking place on those investment strategies will be critical for the future. From a budgetary perspective, we want to enable the process and will continue working with communities so that that work can happen.

Erica, do you want to add more?

The point about the lessons learned from projects that have not been successful through the competitive bid process is important. It has allowed us and the SFT to work with the projects that have not been successful to ensure that it is not necessarily the case that the project cannot ever happen, because it can be worked into a space where it can potentially be submitted in a following year. The role of the SFT has been critical in that. We have worked with it for a long time. It is an infrastructure expert, and I think that it has been mentioned to the committee before that the SFT has been critical for support and advice—even in informal conversations about applications, which local authorities have found invaluable when going through the process.

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.