Mae'r ddweud i ar ei wneud y fwyach ddiwethaf ac, iloedd i ddweud â'r cymdeithas pedigal ond, mae'n ganmellwch yn ddweud am yr aelodau fyddur ddiwethaf a'r ddweud a'u ddweud rydym yn fwy o'r cymdeithas, ganu i ddweud teimlo. Mae'r ystafell ymwyaf erbyn yn fwy o adeilig yn ei ddweud ar yr ystafell a'r ddweud. Rydyn ni cael eu digwydd? Rydyn ni. Mae cymdeinidolau dwg ein bod ni'n trwy gwrsfaith doncadol o'r byrachren i Llandreform yn Ysgarfod ar y Byrdd Plygiant siwr cymdeinidol, yn 2022. Rwy'n amdarnol o'r fplets yn lluniau ffeylach ar y cyfrïlamosn. Fi'n athgwrsfaith yn ysgarfod i Llandreform yn Ysgarfod i Llandreform yn Ysgarfod, ac yn perthyn Nicola Crooke ysgarfod y Llandreform sy'n cyfrwyllwyr. Nid o Flennidog, rydw i'n dod yn callu fieldwyr. I hope that I pronounced that right, Francesco Sendico, who is the lead for the Carbon Neutral Islands project. We have Erika Clarkson, the Joint Head of Division Rural and Islands Future and Cameron Anson, the repopulation island community's policy manager, who is Nicola Crook, who I think is also remote, and Nicola is a national island plan team leader. Before my voice gives up, I'm going to invite the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for inviting me here to discuss the Scottish Government's third annual report on our delivery of the national islands plan for 2022. As in previous years, the report summarises the progress that has been made in relation to each of the commitments within the national islands plan and provides the details of projects and area relevant resource spend to. It also provides me with the opportunity to put on record my thanks to local authorities, to our island stakeholders, community groups, individuals and businesses for the support that they have given over the course of the last year. Their continued input and collaboration is absolutely key to our delivery of the national islands plan. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the working commitment of the Government's islands team over the course of the past year. Some of them are islanders themselves or living now on islands, so it really gives Government a great source of real-life experience, knowledge and expertise when it comes to the issues that islanders face. However, our island communities still face many challenges across the board that have only been amplified by the likes of Covid-19 and the current cost crisis. Sadly, all that we've warned would happen with Brexit is happening and that long-term harm to the wellbeing of our islands cannot be underestimated. The national islands plan continues to provide Scottish Government with a framework to improve the lives of people on islands and I'm really pleased to see continued progress across the national islands plan 13 strategic objectives as is outlined in the annual report. I just want to provide a couple of quick examples that demonstrate the breadth of work that has been undertaken. Firstly, we've delivered the £4.45 million islands programme across all six island local authorities to enable us to work together to support critical projects and to really help make our islands even better places to live, study work and raise a family. Additionally, the £1.4 million islands cost crisis emergency fund was provided directly to island local authorities in order to support them to take that urgent action to help households through the cost crisis. Housing continued to be a key focus for our island communities in 2022. Our national islands plan commits us to improving access to homes for people looking to settle in or return to island communities and delivering against this commitment we've been developing a remote rural and islands housing action plan to ensure we meet the housing needs of those areas and help retain people and attract them to these communities too. Finally, our innovative carbon neutral islands project continues to support our mission to maximise the opportunities of the green economy for Scotland's islands. We've been working really closely with communities on Cumbria, Isla, Barra, Rase, Hoy and Yell to support them in undertaking in-depth carbon audits, which in turn is providing that input into the six community climate change action plans. Just in drawing to a close convener, we continue to progress delivery of the national islands plan. As required by the islands Scotland act 2018, the plan will be fully reviewed in the current year to make sure that it remains fit for purpose, and I really look forward to the committee's input to that review process. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I'm going to kick off without a couple of questions. Can you tell the committee what the key areas of progress that have been achieved in meeting the national islands plan objectives? Can you give us some examples? Because when we look down at the strategic objectives and the commitments, it would appear that there are 133 commitments, but, as of now, halfway through the five-year plan, we've only had 26 for filled. Can you tell us the main achievements that have been made in the past two or three years? I'd be happy to outline that, but it's also important to remember that, first of all, all the commitments are now either for filled or they're on-going, because some of the commitments won't simply be, we won't be able to just tick them off because they will be on-going commitments as we go through. If you look through some of the strategic objectives and some of the projects that are under way, whether that's under objective 11, we look at supporting arts, heritage and culture, again this is something we will continue to do, so some of the commitments that are on-going in relation to that and in other areas will, of course, be on-going rather than be completely fulfilled. I think that we've achieved, we've fulfilled an additional five commitments on progress on last year. I think that some of the key areas of progress within that time are when you look at strategic objective 12 and what we'd set out there, the commitments in relation to the Young Islanders Network. I was happy to be able to launch that network in the summer in Orkney last year, so we've really seen the development of that. It's been great to see the Young Islanders also join our national islands plan delivery group and feature in that as part of that as well. They also feature on the islands programme investment panel, so I think it's really been great to see how that network has been developed and how that has continued to grow and increase its engagement. Another example of one that we have achieved, another commitment that we've achieved is in relation to the islands passport, so that's been launched and high trends are continuing to monitor that. There were also a few commitments in relation to NPF4, so of course, NPF4 has now been, is it now being implemented and the commitments that we put forward in relation to the national islands plan and that recognition of our islands community have been recognised within that as well. As I say, there were a number of commitments in relation to that and also not to forget the islands programme itself. I was proud to announce the 13 projects that had been successful in the funding round for that, which was launched earlier this year, so I think that you can continue to see from the commitments that we've set out there and the implementation route map alongside that that there is an awful lot of work that is still on going while we have fulfilled some of the commitments based on where we were last year. You can understand why when you look at the commitments and halfway through it appears that there's only a fraction actually being fulfilled that were raising concerns. Can you give us some examples or expand on the reasons why progress against some of the strategic objectives? For example, population decline, economic development, transport and digital connectivity are not being met. Digital connectivity certainly jumps out at me. There were eight commitments, but none have been fulfilled by the end of 2022. Digital connectivity is obviously absolutely critical now, so why have we not seen any improvement in that? I don't think that it's fair to say that there's been no improvement because, again, an awful lot of work has been on going in relation to that and I think you can see that from what's set out in the strategic objectives and the commitments there as well. You can look at project gigabit as an example of that to £20 million of Scottish Government funding, £16 million from the UK Government as well to really expand on the R100 programme. We've also seen, I remember talking in my committee appearance last year about the subsea cables that were to be laid as well, so that work has been completed. We are continuing with that roll-out, but it's also important to remember that when we first brought forward the plan that was in 2019 and it was three months before the pandemic, there's no denying the absolutely massive impact that that had, not just in relation to the implementation of our objectives and the commitments there, it had an impact right across the country, right across all parts of government, where we really had to pivot our resource to deal with those immediate challenges that we were facing. There has been some delay in relation to that because of those challenges, but again having resilient communities was really important and that's where we really pivoted those funds that we had as well. If you look at the previous rounds of the islands programme that we had, the funding that we provided, the islands infrastructure fund, healthy islands fund, island communities fund, was to help us to deal with some of those challenges as well and react to that, so I do just think it's really important to bear that in mind. Okay, so when it comes to the digital connectivity, and we've got two and a half years until the end of this current plan, are you confident that we will get superfast broadband to everybody in the island communities? That's along with the R100 on the gigabit scheme. Is that, are you confident that that's going to be delivered? I mean, I am confident that we will continue to make progress on that. I mean, as I say, you can see the progress that we've made over the course of the last year that this work is continuing and it is on-going. Okay, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Convener, it's very much a similar question to you in terms of the R100 being completed by 2028, and I just want some reassurance from the cabinet secretary that there will be progress before the five years of the plan have expired. Yes, I mean, you can see that work is on-going just now. I mentioned project gigabit there and the specific areas that they'll be targeting within that, so there will continue to be that progress. Jim Fairlie. Yeah, thank you, convener. The 2018 act states that annual reports must contain the information about the extent to which outcomes in the national alliance plan have improved in the reporting here. How would you say that the outcomes for island communities have improved since 2019? I think that we can see that from some of the commitments that are in the plan there as well. As I say, a lot of those commitments will be on-going because we want to see continued improvement. I don't think that you would like it if I came here to the committee and outlined that, okay, we'll leave ticked a box so we can move on and focus on something else. I think that the review of the national alliance plan that I talked about is also really important, too, because we've got to make sure that the objectives that we have within it still meet the needs of our island communities and reflect the priorities that they want to see us focusing on, too. When you look right across the board and the full suite of objectives that we have there, we are continuing to work on, for example, when you look at strategic objective 1 and population, there are a number of threads of work that are on-going there. We're working on the talent attraction and migration service. We're also continuing to work on the addressing de-population action plan, as well, which is a key commitment within that, too. We are continuing to work and try where we can and wherever possible to improve the outcomes for our island communities. You talked about £4.1 million later on about funding. I think that I'm right in saying that there's an addition of £2 million of funding going on in the south-east community centre. How has funding awards been received locally and what does the Government hope they're going to achieve? I'm presuming that the island communities are pleased to have that extra funding. That's where the projects through the islands programme have very much been developed with communities as well in trying to identify and address those needs. The funding for the projects that I announced last week were welcome and I was in Shetland announcing three projects that had been awarded funding there. I would also just thank the committee for the scrutiny and the work that they undertook on the islands programme because that really helped to feed into the process and how we worked to the allocation and the models that we used for that funding this year. That feedback was really helpful. As a result, we made improvements to the programme as a result of that work, too. There is a requirement for indicators for the strategic objectives. Sorry, I can't get my tongue around that. Have those indicators actually been developed? Yes. If you look at strategic objective 13 and the overall implementation, it's identified a number of pieces of work that needed to be done to enable us to gather the data that we needed. If we want to ensure that there is effective implementation of the plan, we need the data to inform that and to ensure that we can monitor that. We knew that there was quite a lot of work to be undertaken to enable us to gather that and then take it forward from there. From strategic objective 13, we have undertaken five projects to really try and improve that data programme. There is the islands data dashboard and the national islands plan survey that was undertaken in 2020. That was undertaken by GHI. I think that there were about 4,500 surveys completed from that. We had sent out just over 20,000. I am sure that officials will correct me if I am wrong in relation to that. We had about a 22 per cent return rate in relation to that. Just to add to that as well, we have recently commissioned another survey to be undertaken because now that we have that baseline data, we can then look to build on that for the future. There is also the work that has been undertaken on geography data zones, island region population dashboard and the existing data indicators framework, where we have commissioned ECOS to do some work in relation to that and look at what existing indicators we can use to really try and help us to analyse this as best as we can and try to monitor that progress. So, there is on-going monitoring to make sure that these things are happening. That is where all these different strands of work have been really important. First of all, in ensuring that we can get that baseline data, as I talked about in the survey, helped to provide us with. However, we can actually ensure that we can disaggregate the data for islands from the mainland. That has been a challenge in itself. I do not know if Francesco or any other officials would want to discuss why that has been such a challenge so far and why all those different strands of work are really important in building that picture and in ensuring that, for each of our islands, we are building an accurate picture. I am happy just to jump in very briefly and also some of my colleagues remotely may want to add. Even in my own experience, I am more linked to the carbon neutrality project, but the amount of interest from island communities to better understand the disaggregated data that the granular level is huge, but also huge is the challenge to get that data. The four or five projects that cabinet secretary mentioned are a very, very important start, but as cabinet secretary, it is an ongoing effort. Both in this national islands plan and in the current review that we will start very soon, data and understanding how we can reach out to really the local data. For example, one key challenge, when you are talking about a very small island with a very small population, one would want to know absolutely everything, having data, but actually also consider the privacy aspects. If you only have 80, 90 people on an island, you start disaggregating and having statistics, you will clearly know who is who. That is also something to be very, very mindful about. One would want everything, but at the same time, we have to be very careful that we do not intrude too much into the privacy of those who live on the islands. That makes sense. Thank you. Just continue on that vein. Obviously, indicators for each strategic objective are really important. We are two and a half years into this project, the plan. The indicators were supposed to be formed with government agencies, local authorities, island communities, and it was going to be based on the smart criteria. There were certain things that we knew before we started, so we knew that some of the islands only had 60 or 70 individuals on the island and privacy was going to be important, but surely we should be far further down the road in fulfilling that obligation to have those indicators using smart criteria when we are more than halfway through the plan. Why have we not got to the stage where that is in place? That is where what Francesco highlighted is so important, because it is identifying those challenges and trying to build that baseline picture so that we have something to monitor against. That is where the different five projects—I hope that you can understand from what is set out in the work on that strategic objective—can see the pieces of work that have been undertaken. None of those are quick or necessarily easy to do, but it is ensuring that we are continuing to progress that. As I say, the data indicators framework in that project that is being taken forward is trying to see what existing indicators we can use to monitor the framework too, but it is ensuring that we are getting that baseline data that will help us to do this and to do it effectively. The 2020-23 plan, will those indicators to look at the progress on the strategic objectives be available to us? As I say, we have commissioned another national islands plan survey that will help us to build on that, which we will hopefully be launching in the summer this year. I cannot say that it will necessarily be completed unless officials can give me that confirmation at the meeting today, but the nature of some of those projects is on-going. However, we have been making progress when you look from last year to this year, and we will continue to make that progress and build on that data as we move forward. It is already outlined that what we have previously focused on is gathering the baseline data, and that has been the focus over the past couple of years. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult, as you will appreciate a lot of the data out there. It is not accurate to split between the mainland and the islands. However, in the coming year, Emmaus, the cabinet secretary, said that we will not be running the island survey, which will allow us to have more compatible data. We will also update the previous island's dashboard, which will give us further compatible data to use. However, this will be the first year that we will have two separate batches of data to be able to compare and contrast to see what the trends and changes have been. I wonder whether you can say a bit more about where island communities play a role in assessing the impact of what the island plan is achieving. By that, I do not mean the important quantitative data that you are talking about there, but the qualitative opinion. How do you measure that? That is really important. We want to make sure that we have that voice featured in strongly as we move forward through the implementation of the plan and from the actions that we have set out there, too. That is where the work is. We have a couple of different bodies to help us with the implementation of the plan and the monitoring of that. We have the island strategic group, which the local authorities sit on. I have actually got the next meeting of that coming up shortly. We also have the national islands plan delivery group, as well. That is where you really see that engagement. There are a number of bodies that are represented on that. For example, we have the High Federation of Small Business, the Scottish Islands Federation and the CalMac Community Board. As I mentioned earlier, we have representatives from the Young Islanders Network on that group, too. However, that group has also been convened to help us to look at issues as they have been emerging. There have been meetings of that group to discuss the cost crisis as an example. It has been really helpful in getting that feedback and having those conversations and, as you say, making sure that we have that voice feeding into the process. I do not know if officials want to give more information in relation to particular the islands plan delivery group. I am happy just to say a few more words. The national islands plan delivery group is a key instrument, but not the only one. I think that another thing to highlight is that we, as an islands team, are connected to the region with liaison officers for each local authority. For example, to use my own example, I am the liaison officer for Shetland Islands. What that means is that actually this goes way beyond the local authority itself. Obviously, we develop strong relationships with the officials, with my counterpart, if you want, in the local authority. Actually, that allows us to really get a close connection to the communities in Shetland, for example, again, with my case. I think that that is something very important for the islands team, to really develop those relationships and assess, sometimes, almost unofficially, how the communities are responding to the work that we are doing, how we can improve it and how we can take it forward. I think that that is another aspect of the way that we engage with the communities, which I think is an important one. If you are lasing with local authorities, I think that you are also lasing with individual island communities, because you know what I am going to say here, but for somebody, I am not going to name the islands, but for somebody in certain islands, the local authority is not only distant, but they do not have much sympathy with it. How do you ensure that you are lasing with specific islands and not just with local authorities, which are distant beasts? I know which island you are referring to. Again, every island is different. Every local authority is different as well, so it is difficult to paint a picture for everybody. But I do think that throughout the years, we have engaged with so many organisations through the projects that have been awarded, through the processes that have been set up. Again, obviously, I can expand more on the carbon neutrality project, but that is just one of the many projects. The local authority is just one of the stakeholders, if you want, in the local authority territory, let's say. But also, and again, maybe I can speak more of my own case. I mean, there will be cases where local authorities can open doors, can open doors to communities. Now whether they all love each other happily, that is another issue, but obviously they are on the ground. They know who the people are much better than me and Glasgow. So I do think that there needs to be that level of trust with local authorities that have been developed. Then we have to work also very efficiently through them and arrive to the lowest of the islands in whatever local authority. I don't see any of that to take away from the importance of local authorities, but you know what I'm referring to. So thank you for that. Thank you. Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener, and good morning. Can I turn to island proofing now or island community impact assessments? Does the annual report show that these assessments have led to a change in mindset and culture in public bodies? I think that they have been a really important tool to do exactly that, because what the island communities impact assessments do is put the onus on policy teams to consider island communities. I'm sure that the team here with me today can go into more detail about their engagement, but they engage extensively, particularly across Scottish Government and other policy teams as well, ensuring that we're doing that and feeding in. Because, as you can see from the national islands plan, our communities don't operate in silos. It crosses every single part of government, and there is that relevance there as well. We just want to highlight too that we have updated the guidance on island community impact assessments and how they should be undertaken, provided more materials in relation to those videos and more information as to how they should be undertaken. I think that, based on the feedback that we've received from that process, and that the island team obviously stands ready to work with any public authorities who are undertaking the impact assessments to ensure that they are taking the right things into consideration and using them as they should be used. I think that there's a concern there that might just be seen as a tick box exercise, and I can give, for example, of the national care service and Shetland's view of it, that it was just that, a tick box exercise. Well, they certainly should not be, and it specifically says that within the guidance as well, that they should not be seen as a tick box exercise. But I think that we do have examples of where islands community impact assessments have been used and policies have either been adjusted to reflect that. I think that one example of that is the definition of fuel poverty that we have as well. It was on the back of an island community impact assessment that had been undertaken that the definition of that was changed, obviously recognising the significant impact that there can be for island communities as well. So I certainly do not see them as a tick box exercise. As I say, it specifically states that in the guidance that they should not be, but the team engages extensively to ensure that the relevant authorities who should be undertaking these are doing them well and are considering the findings of them too. But I would say that if there is disagreement in relation to that or about how that has been undertaken, the process for that is also set out in regulations from 2022 in the islands community impact assessment regulations. Yes. Just giving that example, I was meaning more that the Government had treated it as a tick box exercise and perhaps not listening to what the islands were saying. No, as I say, given that example of how we have changed an area on the back of an islands community impact assessment, we have to publish those impact assessments as well. As I say, the process is there if there is disagreement as to the information that is there or how that has been undertaken too, but we do take the islands community impact assessments seriously. If we determine or another public authority determines one, one should not be undertaken, that information also has to be published as well. So it is aiming to be as transparent as possible and outlining how our island communities have been taken into consideration as we are developing various policies or different strategies. Thank you. Oh, sorry, Francesca. Yes. I am wondering whether I can just add two quick points on the ICIA. You started the question by saying that it is about island proofing. I just want to go back to that because ICIA is a specific instrument to make island proofing a reality. I think one example where that has happened very strongly was in developing the island cost crisis emergency fund. I think the team together obviously with Cabinet Secretary, it was very apparent that there were some likely significant negative effects, additional effects on island communities. That is exactly what ICIA is all about. That is exactly what island proofing is all about. The government was able to move very quickly to deliver on an island cost crisis emergency. We obviously know that wasn't what would solve cost crisis, that would magic silver bullet, but it was very well received by, again, the communities, by the local authorities, as an example, as a tangible example of moving fast in island proofing and delivering on the promises of the island Scotland Act. The last thing is it may not be perfect, obviously, but even in my interaction with island communities or island governments from other regions, other countries, they actually always ask about ICIAs. I do think that it may not be perfect, but by working within the island's theme and with the communities and all the stakeholders to fine tune it, to make it work even better, this is one of the several layers of island policy that is recognised also internationally. I just wanted to highlight that. Erika, would you like to come in? Thank you, convener. I'm probably just going to reinforce some of the words there that you heard from Professor Syndico, but just to thank Ms Wishart also for her question. ICIAs are a very busy area of work for my team. We have dedicated team members just working on that policy area and they engage regularly on a daily basis with colleagues right across Scottish Government but also beyond in respect of the 71 relevant authorities within the act. They offer guidance and support and they work very hard to make sure that islands are represented in the work that they're developing. We take it very seriously indeed and, as Francesco said, internationally many of our island partners are curious about our ICIA work and look at it as a best practice model. We recently did consult on the guidance that we'd originally published alongside the regulations and realised that actually they could be better and more user friendly, so we simplified those and made them much more accessible to people. With regards to the NCS work, the national care service work, a full range of impact assessments were done, including Nylon communities impact assessment on the bill and that was obviously in line with statutory duties and commitments. Those ICIAs or those impact assessments that were published were very specific to the provisions within the bill, so we're working with our colleagues to do more impact assessment work alongside their development of the policy and secondary legislation etc, so we are just to reassure Ms Wishart very committed to engaging with our colleagues across Government and with our colleagues in island communities to make sure that impact assessments are done correctly. Just on a follow-up comment, so we've heard from Alasdair Allan that there may be some difference between local authorities and what's actually happening on the ground. The guidance so far around ICIAs appears to be directed toward public bodies and there's a lack of guidance available to how communities engage with impact assessments. Is that something that you're trying to address? Well, as Erika was just outlining there, we have, based on the feedback that we've had, we've worked on that guidance and refreshed that in the course of last year as well. Obviously, the onus is on those relevant authorities that are published in the schedule. We have 71 authorities there who must undertake island communities impact assessments. So, of course, that's where the focus has been on how they undertake that work, ensuring that they do meaningfully engage with the people who are going to be impacted by those policies as well. That's currently public bodies. Is there any efforts to ensure that individuals within communities can actually engage with assessments on a guidance on how to do it? I'm sorry, more information in relation to the consultation that they have to undertake, but, of course, we provide that guidance to public bodies because they're the ones who are legally obligated to undertake those assessments. I don't know if you want more information in relation to that. It's just back to, you know, we hear that local authorities have a role to play, absolutely, but making sure that its community voices that are feeding in and those community voices know how to feed in is important. The guidance at the moment is lacking. Is that something that you're looking to address going forward? So, again, happy also for other members of the team to jump in. I think that there are at least two or three aspects to highlight here. One, in the context of an ICIA itself, island communities will be consulted through the measures that we have at our disposal, that being the National Islands Plan Delivery Group, the sometimes more informal channels that we mentioned before. But another point is, the second point is that when the whole process began, there was some confusion as to whether an ICIA could be triggered by island communities. And if you look at the regulations and the act, that's not the case.  So it's a public sector, let's say a duty. However, island communities can review the decision either not to carry out an ICIA or to review ICAs that have been carried out. So island communities do have that capacity. We do need to continue working with them again in the similar ways that I mentioned before to further that capacity, to provide further clarity on how to engage with that. So I just wanted to add that. I just wanted to explore a bit more on the ICIAs and following on from both Beatrice Wishart's questions and the conveners. So a bit more explanation so I can understand and maybe we can understand. So in talking with island communities, my understanding is that saying to me that the assessments that are needed to be reviewed, that bodies and directorates charged with undertaking them are the same people assessing whether the impacts have been mitigated sufficiently. And so they feel like the process is somewhat flawed. So it's good to hear from the conversation already that I get a sense that you're listening and taking on the learning, but what would you say in response to that, this kind of idea that it's the same bodies doing the assessments and then monitoring them? And where's that opportunity for communities to get real consideration? I mean, I'm obviously happy to take any feedback in relation to that, because as you've highlighted, and I think hopefully as we've been able to highlight today as well, we've already reviewed the guidance based on feedback and how we undertake these, and obviously constantly trying to look to make improvements wherever we can, but yeah, Francesco. Yeah, I don't want to reiterate what I said before, but in particular, the National Islands Plan delivery group does provide us with a forum quite representative across the island communities that can then filter this accountability, if you want, down to the island communities. But I do acknowledge that as much as we try to engage and do engage with island communities in an ideal world, we would do even more of that, and island communities would have even more access to that accountability that reviewing and so forth. But in the structures that we have at our disposal, the delivery group, the lazing with the local authorities, and going beyond local authorities, I do think that we are providing island communities with the voice that the islands act has promised them to have. Just to take that a little bit further, so another thing that I understand in conversation with people around this is that the ICIAs are retrospective rather than proactive. I'd like to hear a little bit more about why they might think that that's the case, because you talked earlier about there being some kind of confusion around how ICIAs are used or triggered. Speaking from my own example and from the example that I highlighted earlier, and the team that I want to come in with more examples on the back of that as well, I mean, we very much use them in the development of policies and strategies. I mean, I've highlighted one particular example where an assessment was taken and we made a change, so I think that's very much how I view them in the same way that we have to undertake when we're looking at other policies, business regulatory impact assessments, considering all that information, showing how that's factored into the decision making. But I don't know if Francesco or anyone else from the team would want to add any information to that. I'll just add to that. I mean, do you think we understand why, how could it be that people are thinking that they are retrospective rather than proactive? Maybe there's some communication issue there. Can I just bring in Erika, Erika's signal that you'd like to respond? Thank you. Again, I don't wish to reiterate much of what Francesco and the Cabinet Secretary have already contributed, but I think that the legislation is the legislation, and we need to ensure that we deliver it as it's written. And so, to a degree, the translation of the legislation into practice is restricted, as set out in the regulations. But in terms of the question there, Francesco, about whether it's retrospective or reactive, I'm sorry if that's the impression that communities are coming away with. They are most definitely intended to be done at the beginning of the process as the guidance sets out. So, really just a commitment to the committee on behalf of Ms Gugion that we, as we've said, there's always more we can do. So, we will take this away and think about how we can make sure that the messaging around ICIAs is clearer and more easily understood for communities, for the people that the regulations are meant to benefit most. Thanks for that, Erika. That's really helpful and, I think, hopefully reassuring. Again, I really do hear that this is somewhat of an iterative process that you are listening. I just want to come back to the piece around communities and public bodies and really ensuring that communities get their voices heard. How can we make sure that the ICIAs are the mechanism that the islanders can use? So, an example that's been given to me is the ICIA being used to stop HIAO, the ATAC centralisation, or, for example, the Malinayona situation with very capacity. How can we make sure that the ICIAs work and that communities really—certainly those two issues have been trying to raise them for quite a long time, and you would think that the assessments would flag that up and help us to get more proactive with them. I think that if there's any particular issues that are more than happy to follow that up with you after the committee today or to follow that up with the committee directly. Obviously, ICIAs are a mechanism that we must use in developing policies, but they are not the only mechanism by which we engage with communities. I think that we've highlighted some of the examples there, whether that's through the National Islands Plan delivery group, the strategic group that we engage with councils, but there is also the engagement that Francesco talked about as well with various different island stakeholders. I wouldn't want anybody to think that that is the only mechanism by which they can make their views known on a policy. Obviously, we want to consult and engage with communities as much as we possibly can in the course of policy development. Some of those bodies have a particular role. We have informal engagement with our stakeholders as well and with communities, so that's by no means the only mechanism by which they can have a say or have an influence. I've got three supplementaries here before I bring Erica back in, so briefly, Jim Fairlie. Thank you, convener. Possibly—it might be named at yourself, Francesco, because this is possibly more granular—I'm not right in thinking that each island has a local steering group that employs a community development officer directly in the local anchor organisation, and that some of the community development officers are young islanders who have been able to return home to work on specific projects. Is that not the case? That is correct. Obviously, we're talking about the carbon neutral island project here. There are six islands that have been included in the CNI project. On each island, there's a bottom-up structure. There's a governance structure that allows a very strong island voice to direct the journey of carbon neutrality in that project. The key players are very much an island steering group composed of, depending on the island in different ways, people representing all different socioeconomic sectors, parts of society on that specific island. That steering group has identified a local anchor organisation that, in the past year and in this year, is receiving funding from the carbon neutral island project to hire one community development officer. You're absolutely right. There are at least three islands where the CDO that has been recruited is a young islander who was doing their studies on the mainland. Thanks to the CNI project, they were able to go back to their own island and drive carbon neutrality on their island, hence following their passion, but also deploying the skills that they have developed on their island. So there is good strong local engagement with me. You've got local steering groups who are helping to develop these things. Absolutely. One thing I need to make very clear we from the carbon neutral island project, we from the island team have not in any way steered the steering group, meaning it's up for them to understand what works better in the context of island, in the context of barra, in the context of hoi. Again, just to repeat the point, we do not know as well as they do the reality on the ground. So for the CNI project, the steering group decides how it's structured, how it operates and so forth. Thank you. Clearly the ICIAs have made a big impact and raised expectations in a way about the kind of decisions that will be subjected to that assessment. One of the questions that I get asked is which organisations or which agencies or which bodies are required to consider going down this route. I just wonder if you can see a bit there about which are and which aren't, because I think that that's sometimes the questions that we get asked locally. Yeah, that's fine. I mean, there is a list of bodies that are, the bodies that are expected to undertake island communities impacts assessment are set out in the schedule, so we have 71 bodies that are listed there. I'd be happy to send that information to the committee if you'd find that helpful. I suppose what I'm driving at is, are you satisfied that that list is complete enough, given the variety of agencies that are involved in delivering policy in an island setting, or is that something that you keep under review? You don't need to operate your mic, if you just, the operator will... Working? Okay, great. Sorry, I apologise. So we have the 71. The way we see it is that this is... When I say constantly under review, I don't want to raise any expectations here, but I do think that when you are working with island communities islands, you need to be aware that things may change, and hence we do need to look at it. But I do want to highlight the further aspect of island communities impact assessment, and even of the wider work that we do, when an ICIA is required, it's often another team saying government, another area of government that will carry out the ICIA, and this is similar to many of the areas of competence that one may think fall under the island's team, be it transport, be it digital connectivity, be it you name it. We have a huge role in working closely with other areas of government to encourage, to strengthen, to push, to promote the interest of islands and islands communities from a policy area and so forth. So even with ICIA, our role is so much with the island communities, but actually there's a lot of role within these buildings, if you want. And a lot of the work that we do, and that we put a lot of effort in, is to almost, I don't know whether the right word, but to educate our own colleagues about ICIAs, how to make it better, and really to island proof our own policies. And I think that's again the power of ICIAs. There's a power externally, because at the end of the day done well it will benefit island communities, but there's also a power internally, because again if we speak more about it, if people are more aware within our own buildings, our own government, then the island communities will benefit from that. Thanks, convener. Just on that point of ICIAs being done well, but what if communities think, or they disagree with the conclusions, how is there any recourse for them, for communities? There's a process for that, which is set out in the regulations. Right, thank you. Thank you. Erica. Thank you, convener. I feel like I'm spending most of the morning just reiterating what's already been said, so apologies to the committee. As I said, there is always more we can do in terms of engaging communities, and we will take that away as a strong message from today's session. I think I really just wanted to reinforce the point that island communities impact assessments are not meant to be a tool to block things happening, but to be an aid to support better policy development, so that's really very much the position from which we come. I think it's also just worth maybe mentioning that all of the Scottish Government's island communities impact assessments are published on our website, so anybody is able to take a look at those. The other point I wanted to just bring in was around the schedule that we just mentioned there of the 71 relevant authorities. That list, as far as I understand it, and we can write to committee just to confirm this, so hope I'm right, but that list can be amended at the discretion of Ministers, and island communities have already indicated a desire to expand this list, so that's one thing that we will be engaging with them on. Thank you. That is correct. It's set out in the act that we can change that list or add or amend it by regulations. Thank you. That's helpful. We're now going to move on to Carbon Neutral Islands project, a question from Rhoda Grant. Thank you, convener. Can I ask about progress on the project, and also what lessons have been learned that can be rolled out to other islands?  I know that Francesco will be desperate to come in as he's the project laid on Carbon Neutral Islands, so you'll be aware that in January this year we published a progress update report as to where we are in relation to that. Francesco has already touched on the community development officers that we have working within each of the communities. The carbon audits, the index carbon audits, have been undertaken, and I believe that the climate change action plans for each of those areas have now been completed, but they're still to be published. That's where we are at the moment, but I'll hand over to Francesco who can provide some more of the detail. Thank you very much. Thank you for the question. I will try to keep it brief, but there could be a lot I can say about it. First part is about progress so far. The second part is about the lessons learned. So when it comes to progress so far, as Cabinet Secretary, I anticipated, the CNI project supported, and I strengthened support, it didn't carry out, it supported in-depth carbon audits on each of the six islands. These audits have been complex, have been difficult to undertake, but they have provided a granular level of data, exactly what we were saying before. That wasn't there before, and I can expand on that in just a second. The whole purpose of having the audit was not so much to dictate which actions to take by the community, quite the opposite. Again, this is a community-led project, but the goal of the carbon audits was to give data, evidence, information to, again, the structure I mentioned before, the steering group, the CDOs, the local anchor organisations, to inform their conversation, and that conversation, that engagement, again, as anticipated, has led to the six community climate change action plans that will soon be published. A word on these action plans, just to ensure that once you see them, you understand what you have in front of you. These are not plans like the ones that we're used to seeing full of references to previous plans, to policy documents, and so forth. This is written by the island community. This will highlight the priorities, the interests, the aspirations, sometimes the dreams of the island communities as represented by steering group, CDO, local anchorisation through the engagement that has happened throughout the year. There's going to be a summary of the audits in the different sectors, and then very specific information about key actions, key areas that I'm happy to expand very briefly if you want in just a second for each island. What happens now is very important, because what you'll have in a few weeks, hopefully, are six glossy nice, hopefully nicely laid out documents that you will enjoy. You can put them in your library or in your computer, but let's be honest, especially island communities have seen way too many of those kinds of documents. Action needs to happen now, so two things will happen this year. We do have one million capital spending allocated to the CNI project. One million doesn't do anything when it comes to carbon neutrality. However, it can provide some funding for some quick win-wins that will provide visibility to the CNI project on the island, and will provide that boost of confidence to the CDOs, to the steering groups, and so forth. The second thing that will happen is thinking a bit more long term, and we will be supporting with key delivery partners the development of climate change investment strategies. By that, we mean two things. One, we'll have this plan, we'll have the aspirations, the interest of the island communities. We need to cost them. We need to see how much would these projects that they would like to take, how much would they actually cost? Are they feasible? Are they not? But more importantly is how can we promote finance, how can we drive finance towards net zero, not just beyond this financial year, but between now 2040 and even further so that carbon neutrality becomes a reality, and not just for the sake of carbon neutrality, but as in the spirit of the CNI project to promote islands that are more resilient, more sustainable, and attractive places to stay and move to. So that's a very important strand of work that we're going to start this year to really focus on the investment strategy that is going to happen. Very briefly on the lessons that we have learned until now. Audits. The audits were about energy, about transport, about waste, about land-related emissions, about mostly those, but the main sectors that Scotland as a whole also looks at. Some of these audits have been done with a very strong input from the community. I will not repeat what the community means here. And that was also from the analysis that has been done by the delivery partners in particular by Community Energy Scotland, a success. So the fact that the community, for example, through household surveys, was really providing the input that allowed the audits to tell you the real story of Yale, the real story of Ireland, and not national databases that can be a bit as good. So that was a really, really good practice. However, it's time consuming, and it does require that level of confidence, trust, and support on the specific island. The challenges in the audit were more related to two things. One, in those more technical areas, for example, land-related emissions, or an initial attempt to better understand the marine ecosystems and how the marine ecosystems have an impact on climate change, be it for good or for bad. Those were very technical matters that have been, if you want, given out to external consultants. The two problems there were that in particular blue carbon is a very, very novel area, even of science, and it was difficult to get to very clear messages, to very clear data. So that's an area where, and you'll hear this often over the next year of carbon neutral and project, ground truthing is needed. We need to not go back and redo the whole thing, clearly not, but we do need to get a much better picture, sounder science. And I think this will be, this should not be seen as a negative, as a downside of the CNI project. Actually, this is good for Scotland as a whole, because blue carbon is very much a baby, if you want, it's as incipient for all of Scotland. So we can use the CNI project ground truthing to fine tune the methodologies, fine tune the information that will then be useful for all of our coastal waters and everything. The other thing is the engagement between external consultants and the communities. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not so much, and that's where that level of trust, confidence support needs to happen, also when it's not just the CNI team, but also people that are brought from the outside. I apologise, chair, and I'm happy to expand on more points, if you want. No apologies needed that, that's very interesting. Rhoda, do you have any? Yes, I've got a couple more questions. You talk about funding and how we're going to get the funding in. Is the islands programme providing any funding for that? Can the national islands plan play a role in helping them? I suppose that I'm kind of concerned, because as a country we need to reach net zero, those are small islands. You seem to indicate that we can get to grips with how much carbon is there, but I wasn't so confident when you talked about the plans that were coming out from islands, you talked about dreams, funding and cost. If we can't do it on a tiny scale compared to the rest of Scotland, what hope of reaching the greater goals for Scotland becoming carbon neutral? I'm happy to expand on that very briefly. This year we will be examining more closely what the, as you also mentioned, these dreams, aspirations, if you want to call them like that, if all of them were complied with, if all of them were met, what big of a difference would it mean make from a net zero perspective, from a carbon neutrality perspective? I won't go into difference between net zero and carbon neutrality, but that is a discussion we will be having this year I think. There is a big challenge, because once we get the numbers right, especially for land related emissions, and again, both Cabinet Secretary and myself were in Shetland and we heard this first hand, if we're only looking at net zero in the context of, with all the respect in the context of bigger Scotland and climate change, these small islands, even if we were to bring all of, yell to net zero, all of rasti to net zero, or even better carbon neutrality, in the context of the bigger picture of Scotland, the world, that will not have a huge impact when it comes to climate change. However, you're absolutely right that islands are there and the CNI project there is to show that we can do it, that we can provide that expertise, but also those jobs and skills that can then potentially be replicated elsewhere. What I want to say is really the following, is that if the only way to get to net zero is by focusing only on one of those aspects, say again, land related emissions, but actually that goes against the will of the community on that specific island. If it just makes the islands even more costly, more difficult to provide housing, more everything, then that is not, at least in my opinion, the single way forward. We need to find a balanced approach where all the aspects of the audit, be it energy, be it transport, be it or looked at, looked at together. Finance wise, the only thing I will say here is that whilst there is dedicated support for the CNI project that is separate to the islands program, in order to deliver even on a small island like Rastisae in terms of population, you will need more finance and that's where the work of myself, of the team that leads on the CNI project is, a bit like I said with ICA, is within these corridors as well with working with other colleagues in government. We had good examples last year working with our adaptation colleagues who have provided some financial support and we want to work more in that direction. Just to highlight that, it's not just the CNI, it's not just the islands program, it's a bigger Scottish Government effort when it comes. I'm just going to comment on that because I know that while there has been the £1 million allocation there, just as Francesco was saying towards the end of the comments there, that's by no means the only investment that is being made. I think that when you look at other parts, obviously we have for the islands programme, but I mean that there is spend that will impact this across all other parts of government to not to mention that islands grow steel as well and how that can help contribute. Can I just, I suppose, drill down to just one small aspect of all of this, fuel poverty, huge in our islands. These small islands would be a really good test bed to test out government policy on fuel poverty, so I'm specifically talking about boiler replacement insulation. Has there work been done on that that we can quickly roll out? That speaks to me of changes to national government policy rather than something that would be specific to those wee islands, but if we could test it in those wee islands it would be a win-win to roll it out to other islands because fuel poverty is huge. Oh, I know it's a massive issue and that was subject of conversations that I had in Shetland last week in trying to look at innovative ways of how we can try and address some of the issues that we're facing. I think when you look at our islands the fact that they are at the forefront of innovation and I think when you look at the energy that is produced and that they're responsible for contributing yet it's our islands that suffer the greatest rates of fuel poverty. Of course, these issues are complex because we don't have all the levers to necessarily fix that but I think this project allows us to look at that within those communities. Obviously, we're focusing on carbon neutrality about how we can try and best tackle and address that as well and no doubt you'll be aware of some of the other schemes that we have there in the particular focus on islands that are within those two in relation to fuel poverty. Unfortunately, we've got about 12 questions to go which gives us about two minutes for a question and answer. We're going to try to keep on going, apologies. Ari-Anne would like to come in and Nicola also would like to comment. Thanks very much, convener. I think that that's been a really helpful line of questioning from Rhoda Grant to understand that. I just wanted to understand the £1 million catalyzing confidence-bringing amount. How will that be divided between the six islands? Is it that they have to apply or is it going to be split evenly? What's the approach there? We have decided to split it evenly. For this first year, we'll see what happens next year, but the level of trust, confidence and support within the communities is such that we had a very important get-together at the end of March and Rassie in person, all of us there, really gelled, if you want. In principle, it's the same for everybody. Obviously, we will need to ask them to put forward some application projects, but very also learning from the past, not too time-consuming. Obviously, we'll scrutinise them. We will give a timeline whereby, say, if this will never happen, but if an island doesn't have projects, then obviously we won't just lose the money, we will pass on the money into other islands in the best possible way that we can think of. But the idea is to split them evenly this time. Very quickly, you have talked a lot about the CDOs. They seem to be crucial people in making sure that those plans get taken forward. We are looking at that happening until 2040. That's the ambition. Do we have a commitment on those CDOs being resourced on going through that whole time of the project? In relation to that, we need to see how the project continues and develops. You are absolutely right in terms of the critical role that they have been playing so far. Coming back to the point that Francesco made earlier, what has been brilliant about the project is seeing young people returning to the islands and returning from studying on the mainland and going back to their communities and having that position there to enable them to do that. Because they are embedded there, they know that and they are in the best position to try to build that community engagement and involvement with the plan. I want to address Ms Grant's point directly about the relationship between the island programme, the national islands plan and the carbon neutral islands project. I want to highlight that a intrinsic pillar of the national islands plan is to begin to very much support the carbon neutral islands, which is a key project to progress that element of it. Secondly, I want to highlight that one of the islands programme projects that have been announced in the garrison house regeneration scheme on Cumbria is also one that will be jointly funded by the island programme and the carbon neutral islands. It is a really good example of a collaborative working in how the projects are in the island programme and will form a pipeline to support the likes of the CNI project. We know that you do not suddenly get a toolbox of policies that are built up when they come along at different stages. When you develop a policy that works on an island, is that knowledge transferred to other islands that are not in the CNI group? Are we seeing that the quick hit, the policies that we know are proven to work, are actually rolled out across all our islands and are funding there to support that role? That is a key part of the project, ensuring the replicability across other islands. Sorry, the word is not coming to me, but to ensure that we can roll out our learning. So, while we very much have six islands as part of this project, we want to make sure that we are rolling out that learning across Scotland but as well as internationally too. Thank you very much. We are now going to move on to addressing the population and a question from Christine Grahame. Thank you very much. Very interesting evidence. We talk about the islands, but my understanding is that there are 93 populated islands in Scotland, huge diversity in perhaps just single-fingers population, large populations, demographics, very different and distance from mainland and so on. I was interested in the action of steering groups on islands because grass roots input with all that diversity. I wanted to ask you if you could give me an example from an island with a very small population—I do not know if you can name it, might be wrong to do it—a small population, what proposals they put forward which were actually not feasible and what the response would be to what response there was to that. There is diplomacy involved here as well, I would imagine, and an example from a large populated island where they came forward with proposals is to sustain their population and even increase it because that is what this is really about and what came from that. I can just start off with that. One of the key consultations that we have done in recent times and the engagement that we have undertaken was in relation to the islands bond, where there was extensive engagement and consultation with island communities. Through that, there were quite clear feelings put across about the islands bond itself, but what came through that were some really helpful and positive suggestions as to how we could try and tackle depopulation or help to retain populations within different island communities. That was a really positive part of that process, because we are taking those ideas and suggestions, and we have taken those and developed practical policy tests to try and see if those are effective. In relation to—you were asking for an example that was not taken on board, it is tough to turn to officials for that, I do not know what examples in particular there would be, but I would say that we definitely had some really good and positive suggestions that we have listened to and that we have tried to implement on the back of that consultation. I do not envy the task that you have with such a diversity, and of course the target, I imagine, is to sustain our islands and to increase populations as best you can. If you give me an example of an island that says populations under threat and you want to sustain the population and increase it, what proposals came from that community and what the response was to it, and an island perhaps that does not need so much help, Sky, let us say, or something that is maybe buzzing along, I do not know, and what proposals came and what the response to that was. It gives me an idea of how effective the grassroots are and how realistic it is. I think that one of the important things you said was building confidence in some of the islands that they could do something, but you would have to temper that with realism and finance. I think that there has been one in particular, and I am sure that officials will correct me if I am wrong, we are coming in with more information in the western isles about an island skills and employment repopulation pilot that has been taken forward with £250,000 of funding as a result of some of that engagement. I do not know if Nicola or Cameron would want to come in with more information. Cameron, would you like to come in? Cameron? The other Cameron? No. I cannot even see if your lips are moving, Cameron, unfortunately. Yes, because Cameron engaged extensively in that work and undertook the consultation. Has he got his microphone on? No, I will not get anything. Just very briefly, even if it is from an energy perspective, but what we have experienced in the community engagement with the CNI project was that on some islands, these are the larger islands, let us say, there is a lot of interest in, let us call it like this, reaping benefits in order also to attract population, increase the resilience disability of the island from our offshore, for example, wind developments. That is where you call the diplomacy, let us say. That is where we need to be very open on the front with the community saying this is not just in our hands, this is a wider UK government matter. That is one of the examples that I can share with you where there is that conversation ongoing. On the smaller islands there have been some projects that are very much more granular if you want that sometimes can be supported even solely by the island team through the island's programme that in some cases can bring back maybe a relatively small number of people, but that can have that trickle effect. Also, on the smallest islands sometimes you really just need a family and that allows the school to remain open and that is a trickling effect. Is that as far down as you go, I mean, I think that there is an island with one person on it, so you would not take it, they are not involved in this or are they? Is there a sort of cut-off point where you say this is the population below which we will not be engaging? No, no. Even an island with one person? I can think of, Rona has two, they were looking for two other people and they are an island, they are part of Scotland. No, it's good to hear, I need to know that. I'm speaking maybe out of turn here, but no, if we are the island's team, we are the team for all the islands. Perhaps, convener, if David cannot speak, we could get some reply from him at some point. I'm sure that if... I'll be happy to send you more information on the policy test, if that's again some of the other projects. I just want some examples of the tangible. There's that one in the western islands that I mentioned, but some other projects were undertaken where we know, for example, childcare can be an issue, that's one that we're taking forward on MUL and a childcare pilot there, but again I can write to the committee with more information on these. That's good, that's what I want to know. That would be helpful, thank you very much. Rachael Hamilton. Cabinet Secretary, the HPA policy has been likened to the second highland clearance. How does this work with the national islands plan for combating and halting population decline? I mean, no doubt you'll be aware and members of the committee will be aware that we've undertaken a consultation in relation to the HPA process and we'll be analysing the results of that as well. We talked earlier about islands community impact assessments, a partial one was undertaken for that, but of course we've got to make sure that we're taking into account these other impacts, of course, and we will be doing that through the processes that we have specified, as well as undertaking our own engagements throughout that as well. I mean, I was in Shetland last week meeting with people in the industries who... to hear their views on that process and potential impacts of that and to listen to people's concerns and that's essentially what we've got to do and we've also got to ensure that we're listening through that consultation exercise and that we do give that full analysis of the consultation responses that we've received before setting out next steps. Yeah, I did have... I was shared a response from Shetlanders over HPMAs. I wonder if you can share with the committee some of the issues that they were raising with you around the increasing the protected areas by 10 per cent. I mean, the concerns, I think, that the committee members will be well aware of. I know we've had a number of debates in relation to that recently. Beatrice Wishart, I know, had a member's debate in relation to that and outlined the concerns of her constituents with that process as well. So, again, we are listening to that because, of course, we've got to take into account and consideration the national island's plans objectives that we have here, about the importance of populations and as well as all the other strategic objectives that we have set out there, too. Okay, and can you clarify whether any port development projects have been affected or cancelled or delayed because of the increasing costs of the two Ferguson marine ferries? I don't have that information to hand and I don't know if that's the case but I'm more than happy to follow up with that. Okay, I was interested also to know whether, if there are any conflicting policies within your own portfolio, Cabinet Secretary, that are likely to have an effect on the delivery of the national island's plan? We would aim further not to be conflicting policies within that. Obviously, between agriculture, fisheries, land reform and forestry sitting within the one portfolio, and no doubt you'll be aware of the various pieces of legislation that we have coming forward within those areas, too. Of course, we've got to ensure that those are aligned and that those are working for our island communities. Okay, don't we just skip to my last question? Just on that, has there been any projects that have been identified through the island plan that would be paused to wait to the outcome of the blanket 10 per cent HPMAs, which might mean that some harbour improvements or investment in fishing boats or whatever might come to nothing? In two years' time, those island communities are not going to be able to fish the areas around islands. Has there been any consideration of projects being paused waiting for the outcome of the consultation? Again, we've had the consultation. We need to analyse and go through that process and then set out our next steps from there. However, you can see from what we've published within the national island's plan in relation to the commitments that we've set out and covering the 13 strategic objectives that work is continuing and work is on-going. Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on to Rhoda, and then Beatrice, and I'll bring you back in for your question. Rhoda. Just a couple of very quick questions about depopulation.  I think that Kevin Stewart was told that the impact of what's happening with ferries is just now worse than the impact of Covid on the economy of the islands, which is pretty horrendous. I wonder what your role can do, especially when the Scottish Government has policies for dealing with depopulation, what can be done to stop that happening? I suppose that there is a secondary impact on the impact of depopulation, because what we've got is young native Gaelic speakers and families living in the islands. While we can try to bring new people in, they don't speak Gaelic. Within a generation, we could lose the whole language just because of depopulation and losing native speakers. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be increasing people coming in and encouraging people in, but we need to keep our own. Absolutely. That's critical. We are absolutely committed to that as well. You'll notice throughout the plan and implementation route map that actions that are set out and that are currently under way and on-going in relation to ensuring that we are enabling that going forward. We want to strengthen that and ensure that Gaelic is part of our cultural heritage. We want to ensure that there will continue to be a place for that going forward. There have been a number of various ministerial groups in relation to that. There has been a ministerial group in relation to a task force Gaelic in the economy and recognising where Gaelic features and whether that's housing, infrastructure and all the various policies that we have. You can see that throughout the plan. When I'm going out and visiting island communities myself, it is the basic infrastructure that is always raised as a critical issue. That's where my work across Government is really important in relation to that. You'll be aware that Minister for Transport re-established the islands transport forum, which now features as part of our island strategic group, where we have the key bodies around the table to ensure that we are getting that cross-cutting engagement and relation to housing as well. Again, that's a really important issue. Of course, I work closely with my colleague, the housing minister, in relation to the development of the remote rural and island housing action plan as well, which will be critical in trying to address some of those challenges. Thank you. I've got a supplement from Beatrice. I was just on the back of Rhoda's questions about transport and housing, because you can't speak about depopulation in islands without those two issues. Interesting in housing in the CPG on space economy last night, housing was referenced for rural areas, not necessarily island areas, but it is an issue in Shetland as well. On transport, at the moment, there is a situation in which people can't make bookings to get on the external ferry, and you are probably aware of that. However, the long-term impact is on islanders' confidence, and you have people saying that they can no longer live on the islands because they can't get away. The Government understands how serious the issue is with people who can't get a booking to get to the mainland to carry out just normal family and business, their normal duties. With the booking system not being open, only open until 30 September, people can't make onward plans. Just to demonstrate how severe the issue is, I launched a questionnaires and online survey on Monday, and within 24 hours, I did 200 responses. It is a big issue at the moment. It is an understanding from Government just how critical getting transport right is. I heard that message loud and clear when I was visiting Shetland last week as well, which is why I follow that up with my colleagues in this case, with the Minister for Transport to highlight that as well. You are absolutely right. The transport is important. Having the housing availability is important as well, which is why this cross-Government work that is happening is vital in trying to resolve some of the issues. I would like to continue by looking at how the Scottish Government works with local authorities in the UK Government. The annual report demonstrates the importance of local authorities to the delivery of the islands plan. Is the Scottish Government confident that island councils have enough money to meet the aspirations of the national islands plan, bearing in mind that some budgets have been cut quite significantly in real terms? I think that we would all ideally want to be in a position where we have more resources at our disposal. I mean, I have been at this committee a number of times in relation to my own budget, and of course we can always do more if we have more funding available to us. However, in the last settlement, there was an increase of around £800 million to local authorities, which was a 3 per cent real terms increase. There is also a special islands needs assessment as part of that, as well as recognising the particular situation of our island authorities, where they get an extra uplift as part of that as well. I know that we have the islands growth deal, the Argyllin Mutual growth deal and the Ayrshire growth deal, and that there is probably some intersection there with the national islands plan, but can you tell me, the committee, what recent communications you have had with the UK Government regarding the proposed rural visa pilot? Yes, in relation to that, that has been a really positive piece of work that we have developed and taken forward and really had close engagement with various stakeholders and local authorities in development of that. It was done in the back of the then Home Secretary, Sajad Javid, who said that he was willing to consider a policy proposal like that. We took that work forward. We wrote to the UK Government in September last year, both myself and Neil Gray, who was the minister leading on migration at that point. However, as yet, we have not had any response to that. I would say that we have had extensive engagement with the UK Parliament and the Welsh Parliament, with the committees. We have also engaged with other committees in the Scottish Parliament. The Migration Advisory Committee welcomed the proposal and said that it seemed like a very sensible way forward, so it is frustrating that we have not had that direct feedback or engagement from the UK Government in relation to that, but other than that, all other engagement has been really positive and the pilot has been widely welcomed. When did you write to the UK Government? That was in September last year. September last year, and you have not had any response? No. Okay, thank you, convener. Okay, Karen Adam. Thank you, convener, and just to stop to that, it was just that, do we have any update on the UK Government minister coming to committee? Did we get a response? I don't think that's the question for just now. I'm sorry, it was just on the back because we mentioned the UK Government minister. Would you like to ask your question? Oh, sorry. Oh, that was a question. Well, we've got very little time. Sorry, that was a supplementary to that one before my question 13, because I've just been told we've run out of time for me to ask question 13 and just to ask for a written answer as well. No, I'm sorry, my mistake. Can you just keep your question brief, but if we need to expand it, what we'll do, we'll make sure that we're right to the cabinet secretary. It would just be a very aware of the time. But if you'd like to ask your question, if we need more time, we'll ask for a written response. I'd like to ask how does the annual report show that the national islands plan and the islands team are influencing decisions that are made by Scottish Government directorates? Well, I would say that one thing that's been great through this process is actually having the islands team and opening remarks. I really just wanted to thank them for the work that they do, because having an islands team and the officials that we have has been really critical in ensuring that we have that island's representation across all parts of Government. I think that we talked a bit about that and quite extensively talked about the extensive engagement that there is in relation to the islands community impact assessments as well, but as an example of that, they're obviously heavily involved in the population work that we have as well. There's the ministerial population task force as well, which draws in other parts of Government, so the work in that sense is really extensive. I was just going to say that I wanted to go a bit more calm to ask the same question, but that was all the point that I was making. No, I thought you had a supplementary question, 13. Really, I think that we're running out of time, to be honest. I'll tell a lie, if we have the time. It was really just about the annual report, and not just the annual report, but more generally the ability, I think that you've touched on it, the ability to influence other directorates of Government when it comes to islands policy. Obviously, you've indicated that you cannot change everything in islands yourselves as a directorate, and you've mentioned that the island impact assessments may be something that can change the culture within Government, but I just want to know what's the progress on changing that culture more broadly across Government? Well, the officials within the island steam have been involved in this process for longer than I have, so they'll probably be able to give a better indication as to how that process has been, but I think that it's been really critical having the time, because you can see from the objectives that we've set out here, obviously it covers every single part of Government, which of course I'm not responsible for, but I see it as my role for having that cross-Government making sure that our islands communities' voices and concerns are represented within each of these areas where these other policy decisions are being taken. I think that progress is happening because often people come to us rather than us to them, and I've been now in post for two years at Second Day, and I've seen it increasing over the last two years. I see that as progress. Okay, just before we move on to the very last question, can you very briefly set out how the Argyll and Bute rural growth deal and the Ayrshire growth deal intersect or interact with the national islands plan? I would say that with the growth deals that we've set out, and I would include the islands growth deal within that as well, I think that they dovetail quite well with the objectives that we have set out there. I think that focusing on some of those deals, there's the low-carbon focus about sustainable thriving communities, so I think that there is, of course, good crossover in relation to the objectives that we have set out and what the growth deals are looking to achieve. Okay, thank you. Rachel Hamilton. Cabinet Secretary, what is the total spend on administration and salaries, including external consultants for those involved in the national islands plan, and how many staff does this fund, and on the basis that few milestones have been met on significant policy aims, such as connectivity or depopulation, can you demonstrate that this is valuable for money? I think that we are demonstrating that because I would categorically refute that little progress has been made, given the 13 strategic objectives and the over 100 commitments that we have set out there as well. I don't think that that's fair to all the teams that are doing work in these various different areas. In relation to the total spend numbers of staff, of course, I don't have those figures to hand, but I'm happy to supply that. I think that that is also unfair to state that, because the papers that we have say, for example, three out of nine milestones for meeting depopulation issues, have been met. In terms of digital connectivity, according to what I've got in front of me, none of those have been met. Can you see why I'm asking this question? That's where I would ask. I cannot see how, from reading the plan, reading the implementation route map, you can come to that view, because it's also recognising, as I was saying, at the start of the committee. At the start of the committee, this isn't a case of ticking off commitments, and we've solved one and move on to the next, because a lot of those programmes are on-going and problems we can't solve overnight, as well as bearing in mind the significant periods of challenges that we've faced. We've had Brexit, we've had a pandemic, which I said at the start, meant that focus had to quite rightly be pivoted towards dealing with that response. To frame it in that way, does it deserve us to all the people who have been involved in developing these projects and driving them forward? The reason that the National Islands plan was set in place was to address things that happened before Brexit, such as depopulation. That is also unfair. Could you get back to the committee on how much, because within the budget for the National Islands spending plan, I can't disseminate the detail between the split between the fiscal resource and the capital budget, respectively, which is £1.5 million and £4 million. If you could get back to the committee on that specific question, that would be really helpful. Yes, I'm happy to do that. I think that the cabinet secretary touched on it. In fairness, have you any estimate of how much Covid has knocked back all those plans for two years when everything was practically enrolled? I'm not just talking about finance, but about practicalities when nobody could move anywhere. I don't know if you're looking for definitive figures there, but I think that in terms of the resource, we were on an emergency footing and really trying to deal with the immediate crises that we faced, quite rightly. It was really important that we did that work. Again, pivoted some of the resources that we had to ensure that we could deal with that as best as we could. That concludes our questions. As always, 90 minutes seems a long session, but we could probably have covered another night. Thank you, convener. I was just briefly to pick up on the point that was made, and I realised that there was a lot going on today. The cabinet secretary and her evidence mentioned that some of the issues today that we're talking about in terms of island policy or wider island policy, there is an impact from the UK Government. It was really just again to ask, have we had any update on when we might hear from a minister coming to this committee at any point about anything? The reason I didn't want to go back to that is because the agreement was that, after meeting with the cabinet secretary next week on the general remit array that we would do that. Officials, thank you very much for your time this morning. We now move on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of a negative SSI, the B disease and pest control Scotland amendment order 2023. Members will recall that we deferred our consideration of this instrument in order to seek further clarification and information on a number of points. Do any members wish to make any recommendation on the instrument? We've had clarification and I'm satisfied with what's been provided so far. That concludes our business in public. We now move into private session and I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.


My name is Amit Rannade. I lead investments for Catamaran. Catamaran is a diversified investment for managing the Moothee family's assets. We are a stage agnostic investor investing across various sectors including commerce, fintech, consumer and healthcare. I would say first build a very strong unit economics business and be very prudent with the capital that you're going to potentially raise. I think Azara Entrepreneur will say build a profitable business first and preferably don't use the capital that you raise.


This study found that rural residents are more likely than urban residents to be vulnerable to healthcare-related issues due to lower levels of social health protection. Additionally, education, income, and direct healthcare costs all play a significant role in determining whether or not individuals can take advantage of public social healthcare protection schemes. In order to improve fair access to quality healthcare, it is important to reduce the cost of healthcare, as well as increase investments in the health sector. This article was authored by Felicia Andrew Kittolay, Robert Michael Lihawa, and Eliza Macuna.


Hello, everyone. Welcome back to JSA TV and JSA podcast. We are covering the latest stories, trends, and innovations live here from DCV Virginia, a very, very packed DCV Virginia in Leesburg. I am here with one of the leaders in digital infrastructure, Daniel Rossi with Train. Let me get your title right, Global Director of Mission Critical Cooling for Train. Welcome. Thanks. Yeah, absolutely. You are quite busy at this conference, as you seem to always be at all of these conferences. So thank you for taking the time. And I wanted to dive into some of the conversations that you've been having here at DCV Virginia. So first of all, you're about to run off to the panel, addressing how the industry can better manage customer cooling requirements over the next five years. So can you give us just a little insight into your answer to that challenge? Yeah, I think in the next five years, we're going to see some really big changes with between chip density changes, climate changes. For example, London last year was considered a 50-year high, and they almost hit it again this year. So there's a lot of different things that are going to be adjusting for requirements-wise. So I think that in the next five years, there needs to be some planning associated with that, whether it's planning around what your load's going to be or planning around what your location. There's a few different ways that I think that the consulting engineers, the customers, there needs to be more transparency, and then with the vendors. So everybody can be on the same page and supplying what you need, not necessarily in the next year, but in the next five, 10 years. Okay, perfect. Yeah. And Trayne also hosted one of the lunches yesterday, which I hear was super popular, and you guys had to bring in extra tables for it and everything. There was a packed house. So that was on sustainability and cooling. So what was one key takeaway from that? I think part of the thing people talk about sustainability a lot, and they talk about carbon offsets and some of the more simple ways of doing that, there's a lot of elements to sustainability that aren't necessarily noted on. So talking about circular materials, talk about using less transportation and redesigning products. We talk about the impact of footprint so that the real estate and how much land is being used. So sustainability just doesn't necessarily mean, oh, this is a better efficient unit. It could also mean the entire process around making the unit, what's included as far as the facility it's going into. A lot of aspects of it to take into account. And I think that more people need to be looking holistically than just at one component. Yeah, yeah. I love that. The holistic look, and you know we're big on that at JSA as well. So you're speaking our language. Thank you. And I was mentioning before, we see each other at conferences a lot. You travel the world seemingly talking about sustainability and cooling and all things data center industry. So how are you feeling just in general about kind of where we're at on the topic of sustainability in this industry and what needs to happen next year in that area? Yeah, I can't believe this is the first time we're meeting in the US. Yeah. So no, there's big changes happening in legislation, particularly in Europe, for example, some countries like Germany just last month or September came out with new legislation around heat reuse and the design and build of data centers in the next like up until 2030, I think. There's a lot of different regulations happening and I think that there's going to be more intensive focus whether it's the carrot or the stick. So whether you have legislation where you have a penalty if you're not, if you're using too much power or on the other side where you'll get some type of incentive if you're being really efficient or you're trying to use renewables, things like that. I think that there's going to be some more changes going forward like that and there's going to be more focus on things like the heat reuse and more focus on things outside of just standard PUE like WUE, what's your water usage? How can we redesign and retrofit existing facilities? So I think there's going to be a little bit more of that. I think the legislation is going to push it that direction. Yeah, we're hearing so much about the legislation coming. Strict, some of it. Yeah, yeah. So definitely a conversation that we will continue to have and ramp up and broaden even more over the next few years here. So thank you so much for joining me here in the States, Danielle, and thank you viewers for tuning in to JSATV Live from DCV Virginia. Happy networking.


BRAINARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HOLDING PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSIONS ABOUT THEIR LONG RANGE FACILITIES PLAN. SARA WINKLEMAN JOINS US LIVE IN OUR BRAINARD STUDIO WITH MORE SARA. Thanks, Dennis. Now, tonight's session was held at Brainard High School, where they inform voters about what to expect on the ballot come April. And for those who are voting early or absentee, they'll vote as soon as February 23rd. After years of compiling data, over 100 listening sessions to see where the district's priorities were and several trips to the school board. The district is ready to take the next step toward the referendum. Now what we want to do is inform people of the three questions, the election process, and talk through each of the aspects and answer questions that our public has. Tonight's session focused on the changes that will be made at the Brainard High School North and South Campus buildings along with the Lincoln Education Center. When we go to each of the buildings, we really like to focus on that particular building. Many of the other ones that aren't in the school buildings themselves, we will be doing an overview of the entire project. Brainard schools are working on putting together nearly 50 other listening sessions to inform the public and give time to ask questions. We're really excited between that period and April 10th to bring forth what we believe is the best plan for the district possible. For many attendees, tax dollars and funding are at the top of their question list. The plan is comprehensive. We believe that we've created a debt structure that makes it affordable for our tax payers. In addition, there is now an interactive tax income calculator on the Blueprint 181 website for homeowners to find out their exact tax increase for all three questions. But in addition to that, we also have some other funding mechanisms that we're tapping into to try to reduce that voter approved amount to make it affordable for our tax payers. When looking at the building, Brainard schools focused on safety, space, efficiency and maintenance to come up with their final plan that will soon be in the hands of the voters for their investment of $145.8 million in the 12 district buildings. We encourage people to come in here and to ask questions and especially to vote on April 10th. Now as a reminder, the Blueprint 181 information sessions are open to anyone that would like to attend and the next one is tomorrow evening at 6.30 at Harrison Elementary. Dennis. Alright, thank you very much Sarah for that live report from our Brainard studio. A full list of dates and locations for future information sessions can be found on our website lptv.org. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.