Rhaiddiw y fawr hanfodd ddweud i gняbl i gorsonfod Ffarrer i Llywodraeth i Llywodraeth i 2023. Felly, ferch nhw wedi gweithio, ymwrdd stiwol, fel hyn rhaid i'n ddiesgol i ddwybul gyda'r cyffredinol. Dwi ardal i yn iawn y pryd datblygiadau gyda gymfaen. Mae'r ffordd ymmrines ymateb yn besydu i ddweud i gondol i gael eich differentlyfau a siarad. Rwy'n gwein i'n gweith. Felly, rodd�es ysgol ymrines i prebiad ysgrutinef i mwy yn 24-25, Felly, gweithgwm Mairey Gwjog yn ddechrau i dd Hundafol â Ddechrau Merretrachol, Llandr-Reform, Niylwyr Fennach, Ilyw ichon Ffysg, Eric Rhaecyson, Ylwyn Lleid, Rebecca Hackett, yllıydd y llymp ddechuid yn rydym yn yr eistedd gyfaintau i'r Llywodraeth Marine, George Burgess, ddechuid yr agriacol trwy Lywodraeth Arwyddo, Cragh Stuart, hollwg yr agriacol trwy Lywodraeth Arwyddo, ymgwr, laminatur, gyna i tyw unrhyw sydd yn stydd, I would like to ask the cabinet secretary to make an opening statement. Thanks very much, convener. I'm obviously delighted to be here with you today. This session comes ahead of the 2024-25 annual Scottish budget, and I welcome the opportunity to hear the views of the committee as we begin that process. The policy prospectus, which was published in March, introduced my expanded portfolio encompassing rural affairs, land reform and islands, and my own responsibilities as set out in the mandate letter from the First Minister. The 2023 medium-term financial strategy sets out a strategy and credible approach to delivering fiscal sustainability over time, and the strategy is anchored around three pillars that illustrated the need for tough and decisive action to ensure our finances are on a sustainable path to deliver our three central missions of equality, opportunity and community. The 24-25 Scottish budget process will be shaped by the medium-term financial strategy, the mandate letters and the programme for government 24-25. We of course continue to feel the impacts of severe economic conditions, inflationary pressures affecting household businesses as well as public services. Similarly, the fiscal outlook for the Scottish Government is expected to remain challenging and subject to considerable volatility arising from uncertainty in the block grant and income tax net position. Where we can, we have taken action to prioritise support to the most vulnerable in our communities, to attract investment and to grow our economy and respond to the climate crisis. My priorities in this are also clear. The budgets allocated to my portfolio will continue to make a vital difference to our nation's wellbeing, protecting, nurturing and restoring our natural assets and ensuring that they sustain our people, our businesses and communities both now and into the future. Addressing, mitigating and adapting to climate change and protecting and restoring nature are challenges that also create opportunities. The spend across my portfolio supports our rural and blue economies to make them more sustainable, productive and prosperous. Scotland's agriculture, forestry, fishing and aquaculture sectors are at the heart of many of our communities. Combined, they contribute around £2.6 billion to the Scottish economy. Our food and drink industry is still Scotland's largest manufacturing sector, with exports worth £8 billion annually. We will continue to work to deliver more fishing opportunities and prosperity for Scotland's coastal communities to transform how we support farming and food production, working with the agricultural sector to co-develop and deliver on the agricultural vision. We have committed £250 million over 10 years to restore 250,000 hectares of degraded peatlands by 2030. That will support new green jobs in the rural economy and is also critical to delivering Scotland's just transition to net zero. We are continuing to invest in the skills and infrastructure needed to ensure that the forestry sector can also continue to grow. This year, we have yet again brought forward agricultural payments to aid vital cash flow into the rural economy. The first stretch has exceeded forecasts and we have paid nearly £300 million in basic payments in the first three weeks. We have increased the Scottish land fund, providing up to £11 million to enable more communities to own land, buildings and other assets in urban and rural areas. I hope that you can see that I am and I will continue to prioritise the direct injection into the economy for rural, agriculture, marine and island communities. That prioritisation provides that much-needed economic stability locally and nationally. Our commitment to supporting the ambitions for our islands also remains strong. We will award up to £14 million of grant funding through the Marine Fund Scotland to support projects in line with our blue economy vision. Those key pieces of work demonstrate the significance of the environment, not just on mitigating climate change on nature restoration, but alongside the importance of people, communities and the economies that they support. Although there are many challenges to overcome as we look ahead to the future, I will continue to work across the Scottish Government and our partners across Scotland to support the resilience, strength of our rural, coastal and island communities. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We are going to kick off with questions specifically on the islands. We are now halfway through the current islands programme. Can you update the committee just on where we are, what progress has been made, how much funding has been committed and how you are assessing whether those projects are good value for money? Yes, I would be happy to. I recently sent the committee a letter that outlined the progress against various projects that we have committed to in the islands programme. We have had £4 million of budget allocated to the islands programme this year, which is supporting a number of projects across our islands that are progressing. I will ask Erika in a moment who can give you more information as to some of the projects that we have on going there. It is, of course, a hugely important programme that we know is making a significant difference in our island communities, as well as delivering against the objectives that we have set out in the national islands plan 2. In terms of value for money, I do not know if it would be helpful to maybe go to talk about how some of those applications are scored and the different factors that are taken into consideration there. I think that when it comes to spend not just on our island areas but in our rural economy as a whole, I think that you cannot just look at it on a purely best value and the economic value in its simplest sense. We have to take into consideration the wider impact that funding in rural and island communities has, because without the islands programme there are some what could be considered in the grand scheme of things, small projects, which have a disproportionately big impact in island communities. One example of that is investment that we have made in old school building in Erisgay, for example. I think that it is really important to bear that in mind. Some of the factors that are taken into account in relation to the scoring of applications, 40 per cent of the scoring in terms of what comes through, is about how the project is delivering against the objectives that we have set out in the national islands plan. A huge element of that process is also about the community impact. How have communities been involved in the project? How will they be included? What will the impacts be on the community throughout that? I think that it is right that we put the value on those particular areas and that we have that strong community focus as well as ensuring that projects are delivering against the national islands plan. I will turn to Erika, who will also be able to provide more information. Thank you, Ms Gijon, and thank you for the question. Good morning, everyone. We have provided some of this information previously to committee, and I hope I am not repeating myself here. Since the launch of the islands programme, which is the £25.8 million investment to support delivery of the national islands plan, we have invested over £12 million in total with £4 million this year, in this financial year. Some of the projects that are being supported through that funding include, as the cabinet secretary has said, the Eriski school project, but also there is some quite exciting work going on in Tobor Moray on MUL around creating some accommodation for workers so that they find it easier to move to, live and remain on the island. We are also doing some work with Canna to create a digital hub there and various other projects similar to that. For example, on Tyree, the community hub, which is going to make it easier for people to access healthcare services, there are going to be some respite beds within that, and it is a complete modernisation and reconfiguration of the existing facilities. All of these projects add up to quite a great value for the communities in which we are investing. The committee will also be aware that the national islands plan has to be, through the act, reported upon to Parliament every year, so they will be able to access our progress report online if they wish to do that, also to see where we are with delivery. I think that most of the commitments within that are either on track or have already been delivered. Thank you. When we look at the capital spending plans over the next few years, there is a decrease of £4.2 million. Given the additional cost of living, the knock-on effects of that, the extra cost in building or whatever, did you expect a fall-off in the predicted spend? Where has that come from? Why have we seen a drop over the four years? Sorry, are you referring to the resource spending review and the capital spending review? The capital spending plan supported by the islands plan is set to decrease by £4 million compared to plans published in 2021. Is that just not being able to deliver projects or what is that figure suggesting? No, I would say that those figures relate to what has been set out in the resource and capital spending review. They are the overall funding envelopes, but they are budgets in and of themselves. We will be working through the budget process. Right now, in relation to the islands programme, there is no capital funding associated to that for the coming financial year, but of course we are working through the budget process. That could well change, but that is the funding envelope that is expected there while there is resource funding expected there, too. I emphasise that the islands programme is not the only means by which there is investment in islands. Even with the islands programme, it has a strong and positive impact on our islands, which has been shown through some of the projects that have taken place throughout it. We also cannot forget about other investment that has taken place across Government and our islands, whether that is in housing, digital or in health and social care. We have to, in the islands growth deal, which is £50 million investment from both the Scottish Government and the UK Government over the course of the next 10 years over a number of pieces of work. I think that it is also important to bear that other spending in mind. I have Alice Arallan and then Ariane Burgess. I will ask how you managed to achieve that. How do you co-ordinate the spending in the islands programme with wider spending? I never stop speaking about it and won't stop speaking about today's housing and the acute needs that there are around that in many areas. How do those two areas of budgeting activity tally? I am happy for more detail. I will bring Erica in because it is the islands team in the Scottish Government that works closely with other departments across the Scottish Government in relation to the funding itself. At ministerial level, we ensure that we have that engagement across the piece in terms of helping to develop. You will be aware, for example, that we are currently developing the rural and island housing action plan. Obviously, there has been strong engagement between our teams in relation to the actions that will come forward as a result of that too. In terms of the funding, I know that there has been concern raised from the committee via local authorities on other bodies previously just about all the different strands of funding that happen across the piece and I suppose how that can be better aligned. The islands team works to ensure that we are meeting our obligations under the islands act, but those other funds are also helping us to deliver against the strategic objectives that we have in the national islands plan. Through the islands programme, as an example of that, the islands team works closely with the Scottish Futures Trust in terms of looking across Government, trying to make sure that we are avoiding when it comes to the applications themselves and applications for that as well as other funds, that there are not crossovers in terms of deadlines, that we are trying to minimise the impact on bodies that are applying to the various funds as well. I will hand over to Erika, who might want to add some more information to that. Just a little bit more information perhaps, just to say previously, I missed the point that we've actually invested in 61 projects over 44 islands, I think. That's actually quite a significant amount of work that's gone into that, but as the cabinet secretary says, there are many examples of cross-Government spending across portfolios, not just in housing, but also we work very closely with our colleagues in the population team to develop the addressing depopulation action plan. My team are taking forward the rural and island elements of that, and we work also with the island strategic group and our colleagues on the senior officers group, which feeds into the island strategic group to identify where priorities need to be considered, and then we will actively go out across government to try and access funding to support those priorities. I was just interested in terms of the value for money, and it's great to hear the number of projects that have been undertaken so far. I wonder if the islands team works along with the Scottish Futures Trust around looking at the community wealth building aspects of things. Is there a focus on projects that have that potential to build community wealth? An example would be one island in an island grouping has a wind turbine, but another one can't, but would there be work being done to look at what could the community wealth building element be on that other island because it can't have a wind turbine? Yes. The community wealth building principles are a specific ask of applicants to see how they are implementing them into projects and ensuring that that is considered and built into the process. I'm aware of the nursery in Kirkwall, and it's quite a big amount. I could extrapolate that out to community wealth building, but it's easier to see a wind turbine that actually generates money. I don't know if you would have specific examples, Erika. I think that some of it relates to where there's been community asset transfers as an example of that, but I don't know if you have some more specific examples. I think that you're probably talking about the Tyree wind turbine, perhaps there, and perhaps also maybe Gia. Maybe the community benefits hugely from those. We're always looking at learning from other islands to take to other communities. Definitely that's a big part of our work. Scottish Futures Trust is very tuned into where we might be able to do that better, so we work really closely with them. There will be examples. I'm struggling to think of them with the top of my head, but really just to reassure committee that we take a very place-based approach to all of our work that we do in islands policy development and implementation, and community wealth building is clearly a big part of that. Thanks very much. You're welcome. Thanks and good morning. I obviously am fairly new to the committee, but I do understand that off the back of last year's engagement with local authorities, it was largely felt that this year's application process was much better, and so taking on board that feedback from the committee and those local authorities, I think, has been really positive. So thanks for doing that. In terms of specific questions, one of the themes that came through our response from the six island local authorities that we wrote to, who had said the process was much better, was twofold. One is that applications are very resource intensive, and it always concerns me when it costs a lot of money to access a lot of money. So I wonder what your response would be to that, and how can you reduce the onerous burden on already stretched local authorities staff when making the applications. Secondly, and this is again a theme that I think we've heard for the last few years, is the nature of our cluttered funding landscape. So local authorities are trying to sort of cobble together different funding options to invest, but it makes it very cluttered. Have you considered the scope for basically combining schemes under the heading of the island programme? Thank you. You raised some really important points there, and I know that the points that you've made came out really clearly in the evidence that the committee had heard previously, and that's where I would really again welcome the work that the committee did, because I think hopefully, as you say, reflected in the feedback that the process this year has been more straightforward and more streamlined than it has been previously. So getting that feedback was really helpful in helping us make those changes to that application process for the island's programme. In terms of reducing that burden in the cluttered funding landscape, I think that that's where the work that the island's team has been doing with the Scottish Futures Trust has been really helpful in trying to minimise that as much as possible. I think that over the course of the past few years we've made refinements to the process of applying to the island's programme, which I think in and of itself has helped the process, because I think that when it comes to applying to the island's programme as an example, everybody's becoming more familiar with that process, so I would like to think that that's easing the pressure on local authorities in a sense, and we also have the SFT there to provide that guidance, help and support as well through that, which I think has been broadly welcomed by local authorities too. So that's in relation to the island's programme itself in trying to reduce the burden there. In terms of the cluttered funding landscape, it is a difficult one to try and resolve, because obviously I don't hold all the levers within this portfolio for the other funds which are going to impact islands. You know, we've talked about the Rural and Islands housing plan there, as well as other schemes that are funded through other portfolios, and I think I'd reflect back on the response that it gave to Alistair Allen about the work that, again, islands and SFT are doing together to really try and minimise that as much as possible, so that has involved working with other policy teams across the Scottish Government, trying to ensure that we're not seeing these either conflicting deadlines, because we do recognise the pressures that local authorities are under in terms of applying to these funds, and so we do want to make that as, well, ease that burden as much as it's within our power to do that and make that process as easy as we can. There's anything for you much to add. Well, just to say that it is great to hear that it's improved for our local authority partners, because we are very mindful in the team of the resource pressures on them, but we have worked really hard to streamline it and to make it a little bit more simpler for them to make their applications. It also gives us an opportunity through that process to identify more strategic and perhaps larger scale projects as well, so that's also useful, and whilst I know that it is obviously resource intensive, it does afford an evidence-based decision-making approach for us to use when we're looking at the impact on communities as we consider the applications, but I think it's important to keep listening and for us to continue to review the process to see what more we can do on it. Thanks very much. Just one small follow-up, and it's extent to which you've reviewed the level of criteria. So, of course, there's always a trade-off in being too rigid in saying what the money can be used for versus giving local authorities a lot of freedom and flexibility. Do you think you're getting that right? I think we probably need to do a little bit more work on that, if I'm completely honest, because the flexibility that I think our local authority partners would like needs to perhaps be a little bit more embedded. We do have to make sure that the islands programme funding matches the strategic objectives within the national islands plan, though, because that's what the money is there to do. So, the criteria is generally associated with those objectives within the plan so that we can ensure delivery or support delivery of it. Thank you. My question is just expanding a bit on the previous question. We heard from North Ayrshire Council when they said that any competitive process requires the diversion of resource from other activities and that a direct award to councils would increase efficiency and speed of project delivery. Shetland Islands Council said that, should an islands programme budget be made available in the future, Shetland Islands Council would strongly favour a model that removes the need for competitive funding bids and is instead based on locally developed investment plans that articulate local priorities over the short to medium term. I just wonder if you could expand a wee bit on those. No problem. I mean, it has been, as I say, over the course of the past couple of years of the programme, it has been learning as we go and trying to modify that process. I remember this from discussions that we've had previously about the islands programme, and it is always difficult when looking at the pros and cons, essentially, of a direct award versus a competitive bid. That's where it was really interesting hearing the evidence from local authorities that the committee had heard around that. I mean, there are drawbacks in relation to direct award because if we were to do that, the allocations could be a lot smaller for some areas, which means that they don't have that ability to take forward some of the larger projects that we've been able to fund. I think a competitive bid process as well. I mean, as we've already talked about, we have made various different changes to the guidance and to the process to streamline it. We've also removed the ceiling on applications so that we local authorities can decide whether they want to take through a large project or whether they would prefer to submit applications for a number of smaller projects within local authority areas. I think that it gives us that overall strategic oversight. We can also ensure, as Erica outlined, that we are delivering against the objectives of the national islands plan as well. Ultimately, we wouldn't have been able to fund some of the big projects that we've seen in the programme over the past couple of years if it hadn't been for that competitive bid process. Although I understand the calls for that direct award, I think that we have that greater flexibility when it comes to a competitive bid model. Just in the back of that, there's a limited amount of money, so there's always going to be an element of competitiveness around the funding. Is there an untangible benefit from a competitive process that allows other local authorities to see plans that others have submitted in detail, whatever, and lessons can be learned from that that's maybe not quantified? Does that make sense? I mean, as Erica was saying, I think that we're always keen to take that learning from what's happening in terms of other projects elsewhere. I don't know if that's what you mean in terms of sharing the learning from projects. I suppose that the competitive process will have winners and losers, but there's a benefit to be derived from the losers because there'll be lessons learned and other local authorities will learn from that. It's also, I suppose, what involvement does Scottish Futures Trust potentially have in that competitive process because we've heard about the capacity that is limited within local authorities, just how much support is provided so that we share the good and everybody benefits from that competitive process? Yeah, in relation to the lessons learned from the projects that haven't been successful through the competitive bid, I think that that is a really important point, and I think that that's where it's allowed us to, and with SFT as well, work with those projects that haven't been successful to work with them to ensure that it's not necessarily a case that the project can't ever happen, but to maybe work it into a space where it can potentially be submitted in a following year, and I think that's where the role of SFT has been really critical in that. We've worked with them for a long time, they are infrastructure experts and I think that they've been really critical, and I think that that point's been made to committee as well in terms of the support and advice, just even for those informal conversations around applications, which I think local authorities have found invaluable in terms of going through this process. Thank you. Arrianne Burgess. Thanks, Comedian. One of the reasons we have an islands plan is because the experiences and the challenges of people living on islands is extremely different than on mainland Scotland, and we're also the great work that's happening in terms of the island team actually being based on islands, and I think that's really helpful, but last year we heard from our Garland Butte Council concerns that the members of the investment panel felt remote from the islands, and then we got an update from Scottish Futures Trust that there was only one member based on an island. I just wondered if you could update us on the changes to membership and how the panel engages with local authorities and island communities? Yes, I'd be happy to. Again, that was feedback that we were happy to receive as well. I think one point I would make is that we, the members of the investment panel up until that point, had had experience of living and working in islands before, so it wasn't necessarily that straightforward, but we did listen to that feedback from the committee, and as a result of that we appointed five new members to the investment panel, here largely islands based. I think that the challenge in that was trying to find members of where there wouldn't be that conflict of interest in terms of the projects, so we have, as an example of that, two members from the Young Islanders Network as part of that too, which I think is really important, but we just so happen, of course, to have the chair of the investment panel sitting to my left who I'm sure can give more detail about that too. Yeah, absolutely. If it would be helpful, Mr Burgess, we have expanded the membership of the investment panel based on the feedback that we got from our local authority partners, and the last time the panel met to consider this year's applications it was clear that that was to the good. The input of our Young Islanders has been fantastic, the most vocal, I would say, and perhaps the most great contributions from them, so we now have a lot more lived experience on the panel than we did have previously, and it's, I think, more effective for that. Thanks for that, and just for clarity, how many members are now on the panel? There are 12. Thanks very much. Thank you. Just finally, we've touched on the role of the Scottish Futures Trust in supporting local authorities, but how specifically will the forthcoming budget help island communities to develop and retain the skills and the workforce in the need to deliver those projects in in the future, so how will it help to build capacity within communities? I'm aware that skills is an issue across our islands, and I think that we've outlined in the national island plan annual report some of the actions that are being taken forward there as well, but I think that there are a number of different projects under way. In relation to the delivery of the islands programme itself and I think some of the challenges that projects have come up against, I think that there is a particular issue around construction skills in particular, ensuring that we have that workforce there. In relation to construction in particular, and this is work that's been taken forward at a national level, there's been work undertaken in relation to the SPQ to get that on a par with other SPQs that we have in place, and the Minister for Higher and Further Education has been leading work on that and had a round table with all the interested stakeholders. I think that was just last month to try and see how we can take forward work in that space and really try and address some of the challenges that there are around that in particular, but there have been, for example, there's been a pilot project which has taken place in UST earlier this year about retaining skills in the island, and I don't know if Eric is able to provide an update on that, but I'd be happy to provide further information to the committee on that, and that was a specific skills pilot that had taken place there, which we're obviously keen to take the learning from. In the Carbon Neutral Islands project as well, there's, I think, a mapping being done of the skills that are going to be needed in terms of the industries that we need to see there too, and I think it's also important not to forget. I think that we've focused very much on the infrastructure and the capital spend of the islands programme, but we also have the resource spending, which is funding another of important projects in that regard too, and I think that one that I would probably pick out there is the island scholarship scheme as well, which is about how we attract and retain students living in our islands as well and make sure that we're matching that up to the skills that we need for the future, so there are a number of strands through that and also work through the islands growth deal too. So what influence do you have to ensure that the likes SDS create enough apprenticeships which are appropriate for those living on islands and provide the funding for students and developing the young workforce? Should part of the budget be looking at that, or should we be expecting more budget from other portfolios to ensure that those skills are developed and we retain the workforce that we really need to do the construction? Of course I'm not responsible for SDS, but I think that that's where it's important that we work together across government to address these challenges that we have. What I didn't mention in my previous response was the fact that we've also undertaken the commission who looked into land-based learning. We've had a review into that, but there have also been a number of other reviews that have taken place around the skills landscape, so we've had the weather's review into that as well, so I will of course be working with my colleagues considering the outcome and the recommendations that each of those reviews has brought forward to see how we can address those issues as a whole. So it's not as if it will be portfolios working in isolation because we know that our islands and rural areas, where there are particular gaps we need to address, and we want to see more people coming into the sectors that are important for our rural and island areas. Okay, thank you. Ariane Burgess has got a supplementary. Yeah, thanks, Cymru. I've got a couple of supplementaries actually coming out of your response. The first one is around childcare, actually, because I think that that's connected to workforce. I visited islands over the summer and was in on a meeting on the challenges around childcare, where there were people who had, you know, had children, young ones and couldn't then get back into the workforce, critical kind of public sector workers, and the challenge was that childcare piece. I just wonder, and I'm aware that the Scottish Government is working on the childcare element, but I just wonder if you take that on board in terms of thinking about the island plan. Absolutely, and even in terms of our, I think, the wider challenges that we know we have to face in terms of child poverty and fuel poverty that we know we see on our islands, you know, where they are disproportionately affected because the costs of living are so much higher, and we know that childcare is a big issue. We have been funding work that, I think, has been taken place, is it with the Malinayona community, the development trust there, a specific childcare pilot, to see how we can try and address those problems and develop solutions that work for our island areas, so we'll be, of course, be keen to take any learning from that, too, but I don't know if you would have anything further to add there. I think it's what, again, as the Cabinet Secretary says, it's about taking learning and trying to see what we can map across other islands where it's appropriate. Obviously, they're all unique and different, and they all have very different population mixes as well, so demographic is not always the same on every island, as you'll know, but it's very heartening to be able to invest in such major projects, such as the critical nursery, and we know, even just anecdotally, how many families that is going to benefit, and it's a project that we're working very closely with the local authority on as well, with the help of SFTs, so your childcare is an issue, it's identified in the National Islands Plan as an issue, and we're doing what we can to work with colleagues to try and support communities where we can. Great, thanks for that. If I may, convener, you mentioned the Carbon Neutral Island initiative, and I just wanted to, I've met with some of the project officers doing incredible work, I'm really amazing what they're doing, really getting down into detail, and really getting a lot of buy-in from the residents on the island, but one of the things that they raised to me was funding, two aspects of the funding. One was that there was a bit of a gap in time where they didn't know whether they were going to get the funding, I think it was coming, but there had to be a bit of a kind of bridging where organisations, the kind of host organisations had to fill in that gap, and that created, it was kind of fortunate, I think, in cases that they did have, they were able to do it, they had that resource, but I think that's been expressed to me that can that not happen? And then the other is just a general long-term certainty, that, you know, what's the long-term future of the Carbon Neutral Island plan, what was raised to me by people involved in the project is not having the certainty means that they can't plan for their lives, they can't plan to have a family even because they don't know if they're actually going to be in a job, and I think that that's also challenging. I understand that this is until 2026, Islands Plan, funding and the Carbon Neutral Islands, and I don't know if we can see beyond it, obviously, carbon, the carbon issues are not going to go away, and it seems to me that the communities doing in these pilots are really just getting started, and there's quite a long way to go to get fully understand what they need to do. First of all, I'll turn to Erika in a moment, I think, in relation to the specific funding issue that you were talking about there, but again, I would absolutely echo what you said at the start about the contribution that the development officers are making because they have been doing really fantastic work. I mean, they're embedded in the communities themselves, so it's just been really fantastic. I've had the chance to meet them and speak to them directly, so it has been really great to see the work that they're undertaking as well. That's been the thing with the Carbon Neutral Islands project, it is very much a bottom-up approach in making sure that communities are involved in that process and part of that process right from the very start. In terms of the overall long-term funding for that, you'll probably be aware that, of course, we've provided an update on the project in January this year, but we had undertaken the carbon audits. Each island involved in the project has published their climate change action plans on the back of that as well, but the next stage in that process is looking at the investment strategies for the future, because I think it's something that when it comes to climate and nature across the piece, public funding will never be able to fill all the gaps of that as much as we might like it to. That's where that private investment and looking at other sources of investment is really important, so it's the work that's taking place on those investment strategies that I think is going to be critical for the future, but, of course, from a budgetary perspective, we want to enable that process and, again, continue to work with communities as well to enable all that work to happen. I'm sorry, Erica, do you want to talk more? Yes, so we were mindful of the funding issue that you raised in your question and have taken away, again, learning from that. I think it was just trying to find the most pragmatic and efficient mechanism to get the money to the heart of the community so that they could use it in the best way. Thank you also for mentioning the development officers. They are wonderful and bring a lot of energy, but certainly bring the project to life. Each of the islands has a steering group as well, so it's worth mentioning the efforts that those groups also put into the project. Moving forward, we're going to just take that feedback from our steering groups and our development officers and the communities that they're working with to make sure that, when we have capital investment again in the future, it's a more efficient mechanism. I do believe that they are all on track for spend and there are some really good projects out there that we'll be able to report to committee on in due course. Thank you. Thank you. You mentioned childcare there and clearly that the Government, through this and other areas of its activities, has put a lot of effort into childcare. I just want to come on one thing, which is that in huge swathes of my constituency—and I'm sure that it's not unique to my constituency—there is not one child minder available for anyone in the community at all. I know I keep going on about that, but some of that is related to the demographics and the fact that there are no houses available for people who might want to do that job to live in. I just wondered whether policy is going to be likely to be focused on some of these demographic problems that have an impact on childcare specifically. Absolutely, no. I do think that you raised a vitally important point about housing. I think that, wherever I go and have a respect to it, it is one of the top issues that is raised because, undoubtedly, we need to make sure that we are providing that affordable housing to enable people to live in communities that will enable us to tackle the issues that you talk about there as well. I think that that was announced earlier this year, £25 million for trying to address key worker accommodation. That is mainly focused on looking at vacant or derelict properties and how we can bring those back into use. It is up to local authorities to determine what key workers are within their areas. I think that initiatives like that can go some way to addressing those problems as well. I would also come back to the pilot that we are undertaking in Mullin Iona. It is really important that we look at that work and see what lessons we can take away from that that could potentially be applied elsewhere. I absolutely take your point. We need the basic infrastructure there in the first place to be able to tackle some of those challenges. Can we move on to future spending plans and some local authorities express surprise and disappointment at the plan reduction in the island's programme? I wonder how that has been communicated to stakeholders and what reassurances can be provided to the six local authorities? I think that I would probably reflect back on the response that I provided earlier about the information that has been set out so far. That was set out in the resource spending review and the capital spending review. They set out broad funding envelopes, but they are not budgets in and of themselves. Because we are at the start of going through the budget process, I am not in a position to say right now what the budget will be for the forthcoming financial year. Again, that is the broad funding envelopes that have been set out. That is not the actual budget at the moment. That could well change, but I cannot give any assurance in relation to that at the moment. Those are the broad funding envelopes, not the actual budget itself. Shetland Islands Council set out their concerns about the lack of capital funding for 2425, saying that it would obviously reduce the capacity of the council to support local community infrastructure projects. Whereas in the previous two years, they had been able to draw in funding from other agencies such as HIE, Historic Environment Scotland, so I wonder what you would say to that. I understand the concerns around that. We want to make sure that there is a pipeline of projects going forward. We continue to work closely with other bodies and we are aware that the islands project can be used as an enabler or a stepping stone for other funds. It also funds things that say in relation to enabling infrastructure for housing that the More Homes Fund would not fund in and of itself. It is hugely important in that regard. If the situation remains as it is at the moment and there is not that capital funding there, first of all it gives us a couple of opportunities to further refine the application process. We would continue to work with the Scottish Futures Trust, ensuring that we are continuing that pipeline of work. We also cannot forget that there is still the delivery of all the on-going projects to be undertaken and done as well, so we would continue with that work. I know how important the island's programme is, but it is not the only capital spend or infrastructure spend that happens across our islands. There will be that continued investment, whether that is in housing or in other areas across Government. There is also the funding that is coming through the island's growth deal. We need to remember all the other spend in the round when we think about spending that takes place in our islands. I return to a familiar theme here. I return to a familiar theme, but you will be aware that, in my constituency, the population drop is 5.5 per cent between the last two censuses. There are some communities in my constituency where the population since the 1960s has halved. I suppose that what I am driving at here is that I am very conscious that through your programme and through the work that you co-operate with other departments, a lot is happening on the housing front, for instance, to try and tackle the population. There is another elephant in the room, and that is that housing is disappearing in the islands at a rate that no Government could possibly make up for by building social housing. Housing is disappearing into Airbnb in some places, and it is disappearing into second homes, or it is simply being bought up by wealthy people, to an extent that in some communities nobody locally could possibly compete with. Valuable are all the activities that we are talking about here. How can they be married up with some attempt in the most fragile communities to deal with the problem that the housing stock is vanishing? There is no one simple solution to address all of that, especially when it comes to depopulation. I think that it is about the action that we take on a number of different fronts to try and address that. I think that that is where, firstly, in thinking about other parts of the portfolio, that there could be opportunities in relation to what we take forward with land reform. We want to see more community ownership, engagement and involvement, more transparency throughout that whole process. I think that there will be opportunities within that. I have also mentioned the rural and islands housing action plan, which is under development, and it should be published soon. The work that is also being done, the funding that I announce for key workers, which I think will hopefully have a positive impact in rural island areas as well, but of course not forgetting the wider work that we are taking forward through the depopulation action plan and how we are looking to address some of the issues through that. We also have undertaken a number of initiatives. Again, some of that funding has come from islands as well as through the population team in the Scottish Government. I think that where we have seen a positive impact, it is important to highlight. We have, together with local authorities, co-funding community settlement officer posts. Where we have seen an impact on that is in relation to US, so there have been 200 families that have been looking to move there. The settlement officer has so far helped about 25 families to relocate there, which I know may not seem a huge number in the grand scheme of things, but is obviously hugely important to the island itself. I think that we are seeing positive work through those actions, so for me it is important that where we are seeing the positive impacts of those initiatives, that we continue that work and embed that as we go forward and as we look to tackle depopulation challenges. I think that all of those projects are valuable and they make a very important impact. As you say, 25 families is a very important thing for a family. I suppose that I am looking at the other end of the hosepipe. Do you think that there will come a time when it will be necessary to make some of those projects even more effective to ensure that the housing market is not completely unregulated and does not result in houses just not being available to live in? I think that it is really important that we look at all those other methods that we can look to tackle some of those issues in islands as well. I know that I can mention a number of different projects. Maybe it comes across as a bit piecemeal and like we are not thinking across the piece, but I think that that is where through the action plan we have the opportunity to bring all of that together in one strategic plan going forward. Again, as you talked about whether it is Airbnb's second homes, how we can look to address and tackle all of that as well as building the new houses. I do not know if that answers your question. Just a small supplementary question, please. Just on housing, the hot topic of the day, and I thank Alistair Allen for bringing it to our attention. The Government has a commitment of 110,000 houses by 2030, and all of that is 10 per cent for rural and island housing, so that is 11,000 houses. I really want to make sure that we hold on to that 11,000, not as a percentage to remove the 10 per cent number and actually just say we need 11,000 because from what I understand talking to people, that number is not really sufficient. One of the things that would be great to look at possibly is what is the value added for one house in a community in an island versus a house in an urban area. In terms of all the things that we have been talking about with the depopulation issue, key workers, the whole system effect on a community to make sure that those houses are there. Do you have thoughts about ensuring that at least 11,000 houses stay in place in terms of that commitment to 2030? Absolutely, of course, because as I said previously in responding to Dr Allen's point, housing is without a doubt one of the key issues that I hear whenever I'm visiting islands, because I think that there are job opportunities and sometimes plenty of job opportunities on islands, but it's the actual infrastructure and the ability for people to live there, which is what holds people back, so it is a huge issue that we have to try and address. I don't want to pre-empt what's going to come through the rural and islands housing action plan, but I think that that will give a real focus to that work. I obviously want to make sure that across the public bodies that we have, we are making the most of our estate. I also want to make sure that—I think that I've spoken in committee before about the visit that undertook to Collinsay, which had been a partnership with Maui as well, who were looking to invest in housing there. I think that that was six houses that they were building there, which obviously is huge for the island and really important. We have spoken to people there who work in that industry, particularly acro-culture, which is based in some of the most rural parts of Scotland and can have a big economic impact in those areas. I think that it's really important that, where we see these emerging industries, that we continue to work with them in partnership and see what more we can provide. Initiatives that are undertaken by community, I think that we can't really underestimate the power and the potential that that has as well. There are a number of projects under way where they've really been able to enhance and do that. I would come back to the land reform part as well and community ownership. For example, when you see the work that's been undertaken through the community ownership of Alva and the transfer and the impact that they've been able to have, where they've doubled their population, all being community-driven. I think that there are huge opportunities through that that we also shouldn't underestimate. We've seen quite a worrying trend with regards to depopulation on the islands, particularly in places like Argyll and Bute. I wondered if some of the budget that perhaps we discussed in the last session, the £5 million for the islands bonds budget, you said that you would be looking at tackling island depopulation. I wondered where that budget was being targeted. My second question is, would the Scottish Government consider a redistributive effect budget, so therefore giving more money to those areas that are experiencing higher depopulation levels? First of all, do you mean in terms of direct, through the islands programme? You've got an islands depopulation action plan. I don't think that's been published yet. No, it hasn't been published yet. I suppose the question is what budget will be allocated to that when you know what the recommendations of the action plan would be. Considering that some islands are experiencing a higher depopulation level than others, will that be distributed in terms of the issues that some local authorities are facing, rather than others, to target that budget? I don't think that it could be seen as straightforward as that in some ways, because I think that right now we know that there are huge disparities between our populations, even between islands, so Orkney mainland I think saw the biggest increase in the Shetland Outer Isles saw a decrease as well. You're absolutely right that there are problem areas, so I think that it's important that that's where we of course work through the Convention of the South of Scotland, the Convention of the Highlands and Islands as well, with the other economic agencies, with the local authorities in those areas. I mentioned some of the community settlement officers. They've been based in areas where there are particular problems, and we've part funded that together with HIE and with the local authorities too. Again, this isn't all funding that comes from my budget, and there is a role for the population team here as well in relation to that, so it's how we best utilise that together. Again, I can't pre-empt what's going to come through the addressing depopulation action plan, but of course it'll look at the actions that we're already undertaking, potentially new actions that could make a big impact going forward, but importantly, how we're working at a local level basis to try and tackle those issues in specific areas, so hopefully that answers your point. Would it be possible to give the committee an update on the island profiling that you've been doing? Maybe Erica could help to answer that. I'm not sure. It was in the last committee session that we heard that there was an island profiling exercise, which, as the Scottish Government was carrying out on, I suppose, demographics. In terms of the national islands plan, we talked about the data collection as part of that. Oh yeah, I think there were five different parts of pieces of work that were on going there, and I would say that just in relation to the census too, we're still waiting on the island specific region information coming out as a result of that, but sorry, I don't know. Erica, there's more you'd want to add to that. We're also about to repeat the national islands plan survey, which is the second time we've run that survey now, so we can write to committee if the cabinet secretary is happy with that for us to give you some more information on the findings. I am interested in also the current ongoing consultations that you're having across the islands. Will some of what you've said today or have a rough plan of change because of that? Absolutely. If the consultation process that we're currently undertaking for the review of the national islands plan, I think that's what you're referring to yet. If that indicates that we need to review and redraft the national islands plan, then absolutely that is the advice that we'll put to our cabinet secretary. It's early days in terms of the face-to-face consultations. We started on egg just this week, and some of the team are in the Western Isles today and yesterday, and we're starting to see a steady trickle of written consultation responses as well, and we're starting to do some early analysis of that. Once we've completed that, the consultation ends on the 7th of November. We've extended it to give more people an opportunity. We've got three online events also, the first of which is tomorrow evening, I think. We'll be able to start to pull out some themes around what we need to be focusing on in a future iteration of the national islands plan, if that's what we need to do. I'll also be happy to send on the consultation information for the different events of the committee. We'll find that helpful. We can do that. We have that to hand, of course. Okay, my lump. Can I just pick up? Is that, again, referring to the last committee session and to what committee members have spoken about today in terms of housing depopulation skills shortages, the issues with transport for islanders and all the rest of the challenges that they face, those are key aspects to ensuring that people live and work in their areas that they choose to. Cabinet Secretary, your commitment was to work with other portfolio holders around that, and I just think it would be, if you haven't got time now, it would be great if the committee could have an update on how that work is progressing. Absolutely. I would stress that, to be honest, it's work that's on-going all the time and, again, the islands team engage with other portfolios across Government all the time on these different aspects of work. I mean, I don't know if you want any more information from Eric at the moment. I can offer reassurances, again, that we do reach out across all of the relevant portfolios across the Scottish Government, whether that's the Gaelic team, crofting colleagues, housing, obviously, and we're working very closely with the population colleagues on the development of the Address Entity Population Action Plan, but I also wonder if it's worth just reiterating the island strategic group role, which the Cabinet Secretary chairs. We have a senior officers group which comprises of us and officers from all of the local authorities, and we meet before the island strategic group to set the agenda for that so that we can understand fully what their priorities are and bring those to the Cabinet Secretary and her colleagues as well, so they'll attend the meeting and hear firsthand from our local authority partners as to what those issues are. And we've also now, again, based on feedback and a better understanding, started to co-author papers with our local authority partners so that we can identify actual tangible actions that we can take with them to try and help them solve some of the issues that they have. So I think that it's quite common, it is quite common for Ms Gougeon's colleagues to attend the island strategic group to speak to those agenda items that we're co-creating. And in fact, just to add to that as well, that is part of these meetings that we have, the Minister for Transport is attending these because we've, there used to be a transport and islands group, but of course it makes sense that we're not doing that in isolation and so that's become a regular part of these meetings as well going forward. So, again, we just want to provide that assurance. Just very quickly, when should we expect the action plan? Will it be in the next three months as the commitment was made to publish it in 2023 and will there be any additional budget out of the rural affairs and islands portfolio to support that? And will you be seeking additional budget commitments from other portfolios given how cross-portfolio this problem will be? Again, that we're still in line with the commitment and still intending to publish that this year. As I've said already, we have been looking at the ongoing commitments that we already have. So that's, we've been resourcing that through the islands programme resource funding, you know, the community settlement officers and various other projects and pilots too. So we're still, obviously again, I'm not going to pre-empt what's going to come out of that, but it will be working jointly with the population team as well in relation to that. Okay, thank you. Now, we've got one final question on the islands. I'm aware there are some supplementaries, but what we'll do is bring those in at the end of the session and we've still got time. Rhoda Grant. Thank you, convener. We all know that the cost of living on the islands is much higher. It can be 20 to 65 per cent higher, even in the good times. And we also know that fuel poverty is higher in the islands, western isles and indeed Shetland is telling us fuel poverty is running at something like 96 per cent and you need to earn over £100,000 to lift yourself out of fuel poverty, which is now on impossible. And that's as much because the climate and the quality of housing stock, as the cost of fuel, obviously plays a part. Others have talked about housing. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how confident she is that programme money is being spent in a way that tackles those issues that are really important to island communities? I am confident that that is happening because, as we've talked about in relation to the guidance and what we look for in relation to project applications, we have a strong waiting towards projects that deliver against the national island plans objectives, of course, of which fuel poverty is one. We know that there are significant issues there, but I think that that's also where I would highlight that it's not just through the islands programme, but we've had a number of initiatives recently with the islands cost crisis emergency fund. We've provided £1.4 million of funding last year, supplemented that with another £1 million this year, to try and address that most critical need, because we know the increase cost that people living on our islands face. I'd be happy to provide a breakdown to committee of how that funding is being spent, if that's been helpful. Essentially, we just wanted to make sure that we were getting that money as quickly as possible to local authorities to best spend as they saw fit. I know that in Shetland they've been using that for free school breakfasts. It's been used to continue or just to supplement work that's already been undertaken in other island areas as well, but I'd be happy to provide more information on that if that's helpful. That would be helpful and maybe some information on how we can implement insulation for those homes, because they can't switch off their heating over the summer. We hear of people being encouraged to save heating, for example, in those climates you can't switch off heating. So the less they need to use, the better it is. That's where I would also highlight one of the changes that's been made to the crofting housing grant this year, which is funding energy efficiency measures up to £38,000. Again, I know that's particular to crofting, but I think that those other measures are really important. There are a number of other schemes that are happening across Government-led in other areas as well, but I'm happy to provide more of that information. Of course, we've had to fuel insecurity fund area-based schemes as well, but if you'd find that helpful, I'm more than happy to contact the committee and provide that further information. Thank you. When I move on to questions on agriculture, I've got a couple to kick off. Can you share your initial thoughts on how the agricultural budget going forward might be divided between different schemes, activities and outcomes, and how you intend to decide what those outcomes are? Sorry, do you mean in relation to the future framework once that's fully in place? Yes. I know that there have been various calls by different organisations as to what should be more heavily weighted, but the fact is that, of course, we've committed to a process of co-development with our farmers and crofters when it comes to that. I'm not going to pre-empt the discussions that we would be having in relation to that as well, but, of course, we don't have any certainty of our future budgets in that regard. The convener will no doubt be aware of the other commitments that we've already stated about maintaining direct payments and the importance of that, because we know how important it is to continue that support for our farmers and for food production as well. On an overall budget split, we haven't come to a decision on that as yet, because I think that that's an important part of the co-development process. Over the past few years, what I think most people would suggest was a historic injustice when it came to funding in Scottish agriculture. We saw the convergence funding of £160 million, but, more recently, we also saw the Buse Review suggest that Scottish agriculture should receive selling in the region of an additional £60 million over two years. That money has come into the agriculture pot. Firstly, I would like to ask whether all that money has been ring-fenced for agriculture and to ask where that £60 million additional funding has gone. First of all, relating specifically to the Buse Review funds, that funding is ring-fenced for agriculture. You'll be aware of how we set out the overall programme for three years worth of £51 million of funding and how that was going to be returned to the portfolio. I don't know what specific figure you're referring to there or what year that had become apparent. What is that in relation to the figures that we've announced or that we discussed previously? Right now, it's something that we touched on in the last committee meeting. The Buse Review suggested that there was an injustice in agricultural funding across the whole of the UK. That was addressed by Scotland getting an additional £60 million or thereabouts over two years. The Scottish Government got that. It was ring-fenced, but what has happened to it? What are the timescales for that money coming back into the agricultural budget and will it be backdated? As I would say, you can see that in the published budget, how our spending for agricultural funding is used. I'll turn to George Safe as information on the specific £60 million. Yes, for the current year and future years, the Bue money, which, yes, as you said, is in the agricultural budget. We're no longer identifying it as a separate line in the budget. As the cabinet secretary said, it is ring-fenced. As we discussed in the last session, while some savings have been made from within the ring-fenced, there is a very strong commitment that that will be returned to the portfolio in future years, precisely when it will be a matter for the budget. Will that be accumulative? Will we backdate that? So the additional funding that's come, and as you said, despite it being ring-fenced, has been identified as a saving. Will that come back? If we've missed out on £60 million because of savings over the last two years, will that £60 million come back in 2025-26? That's the point that George is making. In terms of how that money is returned to the portfolio, it would be subject to discussion between myself and the Deputy First Minister. So we'll still have to discuss, in particular in relation to the £33 million that you're referring to and that came up in discussion previously. We're still to discuss and agree to how that will be returned to the portfolio in future years. In relation to ring-fenced funding, because it is ring-fenced, it must be returned to the portfolio. Okay, just to be clear, the abused money is part of the agricultural settlement now, as in such it's ring-fenced, not subjected to Barnett. It's absolutely okay, thank you. Okay, Ariane Burgess and Alasdair Allan. Thanks, convener. In the last budget, there was a £35.8 million that was allocated to the agri environment climate scheme aches for those measures, while £485 million went to direct payments in pillar 1. That means that less than 5 per cent of the agricultural support and related services budget went to the scheme dedicated to tackling the climate and nature crisis. It's great to see that the Government has consulted on being able to cap direct payments that would free up more money for supporting climate and nature measures in farming. What can be done before the new framework is brought in to direct more public funding for public goods? We know that the agri environment climate scheme largely delivers against its objectives as well, and I think that it has been a really important scheme for our farmers to be able to access, but I think that we want to emphasise that that is where we are currently working, and we have the national test programme in place to try and ensure that businesses and offer that incentive for businesses, if they are not doing that already, to be able to look at their own performance at the moment in relation to carbon audit, soil testing. We have also provided funding this year for animal health and welfare plans, and we want to expand that into the future, because I think that it is important that individual businesses get their own baseline information to see how they can then improve from that point onward. However, I would say that it is not just the funding through that scheme, and I know that you will be aware, as I am when I visit different farms and crops across the country, just the different actions that are being undertaken, the work that is already under way to reduce emissions, to enhance nature. However, of course, what we will be setting out in the bill coming forward is the powers that we need to establish the framework for future payments going forward with more detail to come in relation to that as well. I understand that the framework will set down and give the powers. I think that what I am hearing as I go out and visit farms and crops is that certainty part. We have got this tricky situation, because we need a bill that has got to go through legislation, and that takes time. However, in the meantime, we have got to start taking these actions sooner rather than later. I hear about the national test programme, but it seems that we are still not getting a message through that gives certainty. I think that a lot of people are getting stuck on the agricultural bill, but can we get those payments in sooner that really start moving people in the right direction? That has been what I would also point to what we have already published, because I understand and we do not have the exact details of what is going to be involved in a future scheme. However, we have tried to first of all share our thinking in that regard, and I think that it would like to give a general direction as to the measures that we will be looking at to include in future support going forward. However, we have also set out that route map and timeline as to when more information will become available and when people can expect to hear that. Alongside the route map that we published earlier this year, we also published the list of measures. That is by no means a definitive list and it is not a final list, where we were and I think that there are links within the publications that we have online for that feedback and for people to provide us with information. Again, it sets out some examples of how the different measures can interact and what that would mean for different types of businesses. It also outlines some of the measures. Again, as I have already said, we would look to potentially include as part of final support. It does not cover all sectors because we know that there is more work that needs to be done there. However, I think that that is where we see—I am sorry, and just to emphasise as well, I have made the point already about that there will not be any cliff edges in support because we have said that the schemes that people are currently on will continue until we transition at the various points. Again, that is all set out in the route map too. While we cannot set out the detail of the specifics of a scheme, we have set out our thinking where that is at at the moment to hopefully give some of that clarity in that direction to people so that they know what we are considering going forward in the future. The Scottish Government faces a pretty impossible task trying to second guess what the UK Government might be doing on that. We do not appear to have much information beyond what happens beyond 2025 from them. One of the things that you are having to second guess is whether the UK Government might choose to barnatise agricultural support given how difficult that would be given the different agricultural profiles in Scotland and England. Those are huge concerns going forward and because you are absolutely right, we have no certainty on what our funding is going to be beyond 2025. I think that as much as we can set out our thinking what a future framework might look to deliver, we do not have that clarity about what that funding will be for various schemes going forward. We are still trying to engage with the UK Government in that conversation to get that clarity and certainty, but unfortunately those discussions have not taken place. Just another follow-up on that. We have obviously got the agriculture bill coming up hopefully sometime soon. The Welsh have already put in place their agriculture act, which has the Welsh Government making a commitment to multi-year funding or a plan to set out what multi-year funding and how that could deliver for its priorities. Can you tell us what your views would be on an inclusion of a multi-year obligation within the agriculture bill? Of course, as we have already talked about, it is difficult when you only get an annual allocation of budget sorry to plan for multi-years. I think that the plans that the Welsh have introduced are a measure that makes sense, but of course I am not going to pre-empt what is going to be published in relation to the bill, but of course I will be keeping committee informed of that. I have a series of short questions on workers. First, just as a brief aside, it is exactly, somewhat fortuitous, exactly a year since you published the proposals for a bespoke rural visa. I ask that question in the context of the NFU saying that about £60 million pounds worth of food was wasted last year as a result of labour shortage. Have you had a response yet to the proposal for a bespoke rural visa from the UK Government? No, we haven't. Secondly, in terms of your concerns about the number of workers that we have in the agricultural sector, do you feel like we are facing another challenging year? Yes, I do. I hear those concerns about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and I don't think it's ever produced the numbers that we need for our industry in Scotland. From the discussions that I have, the availability of that workforce continues to be an issue as well as the various issues that are within the scheme itself. That leads me to my final question. It's about support and advice and training for workers that currently are in the sector, so crofters, farmers, farm workers. In 2022, there was a PFG commitment to invest more in skills and advice for farmers and crofters, not least to support that just transition. Could you tell us a little bit about the funding that's been allocated to that and progress on supporting those workers? No problem, I'd be happy to. We've allocated, we have £5 million in the budget to support the work of the farm advisory service, so they provide bespoke advice as well as more generic advice as well. That's been really important in terms of that advice that they can offer to farmers and crofters. It's not just the farm advisory service that's well in and of itself, because we know that peer-to-peer learning is really important, the knowledge transfer and innovation is really important, which is where we have the CataFund, our knowledge transfer and innovation fund, where we support various projects throughout that, again specifically for knowledge transfer. Where, for example, we support the funding of the monitor farm, which we know are very well received, and being able to share that experience and share that learning for the businesses involved in that is really important. We're looking at that through a variety of different funds, but also just to emphasise, we know how important that skills advice and that CPD is going forward. That was a point that we had, well, that actually came through the consultation on the future agriculture bill very strongly as well. I denounced earlier this year about the work that had been undertaken by GHI and SRUC about what a future system might look like in terms of agricultural knowledge and innovation, so they've published the research on that just at the start of the summer, so of course we're keen to look at that and see what we can take from that and what options we can develop as part of the future framework too. Thanks very much. Cabinet Secretary, I'm aware that we're almost up to time. Do you have some time in hand that we could continue for another maybe 15 minutes? A smaller amount, if that's okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Rachel Hamilton. I just wanted to go back to the convener's point on the BU funding. Can you define what ring-fenced means? Can you offer guidance on whether you expect that similar funds may be taken from the agricultural budget going forward? The relation to ring-fencing itself must be spent on those specific areas, so in relation to agriculture, agricultural support and marine funding as well. I don't know if Craig would want to provide any more information on any more specific points on that. In relation to funding going forward, again, we continually have to monitor our budget throughout the year. I can't say obviously at the moment what's going to be coming over the we're just at the start of the budget process this year, but of course we are in very challenging financial circumstances. There's no getting around it. There's difficult situations that we have to look at within my own portfolio as well as other portfolios across Government because we have to present a balanced budget. I can't say definitively that we wouldn't be making any savings or making any adjustments to ring-fenced funding there, but of course, again, we've just come back to the earlier points that we've made, that anything that's identified or anything that's potentially offered from ring-fenced funding has to be returned to the portfolio in future years. So again, in relation to the 33 million, we've already discussed that subject to discussion with finances to when that's going to be returned to the portfolio. I'm sorry, Craig or George, I don't know if you want to know. Just a supplement briefly. The Cabinet Secretary has outlined in broad terms what is ring-fenced, which is essentially the replacement for the funding that came from Brussels. I think maybe the most helpful thing for the committee would be if we look to see if we have definitive expression of that perhaps from Treasury that we can share with the committee. Is there a statutory obligation to prove that that money has been spent or ring-fenced in a certain timeframe? No, none of the ring-fencing is statutory at all. It is simply part of agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. So that money wouldn't have to be returned if it wasn't ring-fenced and spent on agriculture? I think that would be a matter between our central finance colleagues and Treasury, the certain expectations from the Treasury that it would be spent in those areas. I think that that would be useful if you could perhaps come back to the committee perhaps in writing along with the definition of what is ring-fenced fencing, but could you also confirm that that money has not been put into plugging a black hole in finance, the £1 billion black hole in the Scottish Government finance budget? Is that money used to plug a hole? The Scottish Government, as a whole, has to present a balanced budget. I reiterate what I said previously about the decisions that we have to take in this portfolio, as well as in other portfolios across Government, because we have to make sure that we have a balanced budget at the end of the day. It is incumbent on all of us, and it is a shared challenge between all of us. That is why we had the emergency budget review last year, because we had to take emergency measures to ensure that we were helping people as best we can and using that resource as best we can, especially as the cost crisis was affecting people in our communities. I suppose that what you are saying is that ring-fencing does not really mean anything? Well, it does, because the £33 million in particular must be returned to the portfolio, so ring-fencing does mean something in that regard. Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to get this on record. At the moment, the Scottish Government receives, in the region of £620 million from the UK Government, which is made up of £595 million plus £25.7 million from the Buse in additional support. The Scottish Government then puts additional funding in that takes it up to about £680 million in total, of which 80 per cent is paid out in direct payments. The figure that we are looking at is ring-fencing for agriculture, £680 million. Is that what we should expect in the agricultural budget next year? Again, I cannot tell you what is going to be in the budget next year, because we have not started that process yet. So it could be that that ring-fenced £680 million actually is not £680 million? Sorry, Craig. The figure that ring-fenced would be, for a specific year, we will need to see what the ring-fenced part of the budget is for next year. Just this year, part of the budget here is ring-fenced, part of it is not ring-fenced. There will be a set of numbers for next year at this stage. We cannot say what those will be. Okay, but it is clear that £680 million from what you have said previously is ring-fenced. It is either agricultural budget or its pews, which you have said was ring-fenced. So what we are talking about next year, if that ring-fencing is intact, we have £680 million, but from that, there may be savings. The cost savings that you had previously was the £33 million, which you said would come back to the budget. The figure that we are looking at is £680 million, but that would be subject to money being taken out of that budget for overall government savings. No, because it is not possible to say that without having a budget and without knowing what will happen over the course of the next year, we do not know what those potential savings might be.  Sorry, Craig. Do you want to come in? Second, so what we have is a guarantee from the UK Government of the ring-fenced funding. We mentioned the £595 million for crofters and farmers and also the Bue money. We have got that guarantee again for £24.25. That money will come into our budget. The extra money that is spent from Scottish Government money, that is the bit that will come out in the wash, if you like, through the budget process. So if there are any savings to be made, that is the balance, essentially, that will be reviewed. As I said, that is all part of the budget process, but the ring-fenced funding at this point, we do have a guarantee from the UK Government that that will flow into the budget next year. Which is approximately £646 million. So for agriculture, you have got the £595 plus the Bue of £25.7 million. Okay, thank you. That makes it a bit clearer. Thank you. I have got a supplementary before we move on to Fisheries from Alasher Allan. Oh, sorry, I did interrupt you to my apologies. Okay, so today it's been reported that there's been a fine from the European Commission. A £5.6 million fine following a 2020 audit uncovered failures how the Scottish Government was administering cat payments to Scottish farmers. Where will that money come from in terms of paying that fine? Again, because this is on-going court action at the moment, I mean we're not able to comment on that. Okay, but if hypothetically you had worked out that you might be fined and it wasn't part of a court proceeding and it wasn't this particular issue, where would that money come from? Again, I understand the point that you're trying to get to, but I hope you can understand why I would be uncomfortable to say anything in that regard given the action that's currently on-going. But again, once that action is complete, I'd be happy to write to the committee with full information. Okay, thanks. Do you have a float? Do you have a contingency fund? Historically, the European Union was pretty good at fining us, so we're not talking about this specific case because it's something that happens on an annual basis. We know that farmers get penalised and those penalties can go back as far as 10 years, as we know, so that goes into a pot of money that finds. If there is to be a UK Government or a European fine on that, where would it come from? Would it come out of the next year's budget or is there a contingency for these situations? There isn't a contingency fund as such. Where cases are raised and, convener, as you say, that has been the case for many, many years. We will make an assessment of the likelihood of success or otherwise. We will often make provision in our accounts and, as these cases can drag on for several years, that will be accrued. Ultimately, it is coming out of the rural affairs budget, although not necessarily in the year in which the case settles. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Alasdair Allan. Is one of the things that you have to second guess again when you're offering advice or speaking to farmers and crofters in Scotland about the likelihood or otherwise of whether the UK Government might invoke the UK Internal Market Act in some of all this? Do you have to second guess to what extent there will be tolerant of difference? I'm thinking, for instance, of the continuation of potentially direct payments in Scotland or the continuation of el-fast payments in Scotland. Is that something on the horizon that you have to anticipate whether they will take a benign or other attitude towards difference when it comes to the UK Government? Yes, it will be because I think particularly in relation to the subsidy control act and any potential impacts of that. Obviously we're not at the point yet of bringing forward the detailed legislation about the detail of future schemes, but I think that that is something and discussions that we will need to have further down the line, but it is something that has continued to concern us, I think, from the start of the subsidy control bill process right through, because I think a lot of the concerns that we have weren't really resolved throughout the passage of that legislation, so those concerns very much remain. Okay, we'll now move on to Fisheries and the first question from Karen Adam. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. The programme for government is to publish, so there was going to publish, a science and innovation strategy for marine and freshwater environments. I'm just wondering if that would have any budgetary implications on the Scottish Government-funded science? It's not anticipated that it would have any funding implications at the moment, because it's not a strategy that would, in and of itself, require to be funded. It's more about, I suppose, how we can better utilise the resource that we already have available in relation to science and how we use that in Scotland. Ultimately, the science and innovation strategy is about how we can essentially work more collaboratively across the peace in Scotland, because I think that within the marine directorate we have a fantastic marine science resource there. We also have the aquarium, the marine lab, so it's how we can better utilise the assets and the people that we have, but working together with other institutions and academia across Scotland, because we really want to ensure, as far as we possibly can, that Scotland becomes that global leader when it comes to marine research and how we move forward. I think that it's only by better collaborating and using those resources more wisely right across the peace that we can hope to achieve that too. What is the current state of play with marine funding after Brexit? I will. We believe that we haven't received the full resource that we should have received and that we would have received had we remained members of the EU, so we currently have £14 million a year as part of the marine fund Scotland. Even if you consider other nations within the EU and what they receive through the new strand of funding in the EU, it's the European maritime fisheries and aquaculture fund. When you look at nations that are perhaps similar in population size to us, one of the better comparisons is Denmark. They have the same population but they have a smaller marine area and also a smaller marine industry sector as a whole, and they are on average receiving £25 million a year in comparison. They also have the seven-year continuity of that as well, so £25 million over the course of that seven years, whereas we don't have the multi-year and we receive the £40 million allocation, so we believe that we are being significantly shortchanged in that. Can I ask just on technology and science and innovation? We now have technology that uses artificial intelligence that can identify different fish stocks when they are brought on to boats, which is a fantastic opportunity to accurately monitor the populations of cod, herring or whatever in our seas. However, there is probably a reluctance from some fishing fleets to have them on board because of the discard ban, which is almost certain that some species of fish will be landed and they are not the target species and those fish are not able to be discarded, but it could have implications with fines and coders or whatever. Is there any potential for a moratorium on that to get a real sense of what our fishermen are catching and what the implications are for stock calculations? An investment from the Scottish Government in terms of that type of technology might go a long way to baselining what it is in our seas and where it is. On the point about AI and how we utilise new technology, I think that you are absolutely right. I am sure that that will be a part of the consideration that is happening right now in relation to the science and innovation strategy going forward and how we can utilise the advances in the technology. On a moratorium, we are not considering that at the moment because we have undertaken the work on the future catching policy, so we had published the outcome of that consultation. I think that we have real opportunities through that because tackling discards is a really complex issue. I think that there were around 385 exemptions to the initial rule but made it really hard to comply with. What we set out in the future catching policy was essentially a way of tailoring that or potentially tailoring that to the different parts of our fishing industry to make it more able to simplify it, to make it more transparent and easier to comply with. I think that that has been a really important piece of work and one that I think really will have a significant difference. The work on that, I believe, is currently being undertaken by the FMAC group, where it is giving more detailed consideration as to how we can develop that policy and take that forward. I think that that will be the key to getting into grips with those issues. Arrianne Burgess, my question has been answered. That has brought us to the end of the session. I very much appreciate you giving us a little bit more of your time. That has been most helpful. That concludes our business in public. We will now move into private session and I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes for a comfort break.