���˿���

I want to move on to another topic—that of the role of this Parliament in the scrutiny of city region and regional growth deals. It has not been certain to us as a committee in what respect the Scottish Parliament has previously had a role in ensuring that the city region deals have the positive outcomes that we all want to see. What is your sentiment as to the role of this place in that regard? What is your intention with regard to giving this Parliament its place when it comes to scrutiny?

The Scottish Council for Development and Industry—now known as Prosper—was formed in 1931 with a specific focus on industrial strategy. However, it is not represented on the council, which seems utterly bizarre. In other words, will you commit today to looking at ensuring that there is proper Scottish representation on the council to make sure that Scotland is properly at the heart of the net zero future, which is one of the critical growth sectors?

I completely agree, and that is why I think that it is important that the body can deliver through Scotland and not just to Scotland, which is why it is important that it has genuine and adequate Scottish representation. However, I will move on, as I appreciate that your time is precious.

I could not let today’s session go by without raising the issue of Grangemouth, which, as you will appreciate, is extremely close to my heart. There has been much debate and discussion around the issue, but, in light of what we see in terms of the net zero future, my primary interest remains how we can protect and retain the skills base with whatever transition is put in place, and not only the skills base but that skills cluster, which also includes the important chemical cluster. Can you give a sense of your latest thinking on what the current situation is, for the record?

I suspect that colleagues may want to ask about the detail of how the inflationary environment affects the projects, but I will finish off my questions on the funding elements.

I am thinking about deal interactions and profiling. Public sector funding may move from one pot to another pot—we heard descriptions of that earlier. Deal teams might interact with various sources of potential funding: there is levelling up, the shared prosperity fund and the Scottish National Investment Bank, and we are not yet sure how the UK investment bank will interface with them. Are you alive to that issue, and does it pose any risks or, indeed, opportunities?

No—it is fine. You have put your view on the record, and that is helpful. Thank you. I appreciate you attending today.

On governance, you correctly point out that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government have a role to play. From a purely governance perspective, I have always been a little unclear as to how that arrangement works. Generally speaking, in any governance structure, there will be one authority that is ultimately accountable. In this instance, the position is less clear from a governance perspective. Who do you see being the ultimate accountable body when both the Scottish Government and the UK Government are providing funding? How do you see the arrangement working in that regard?

Good morning—in fact, good afternoon. It has been a long morning for everybody.

I have some general questions. First, in relation to where we are with the budget process and the final vote, discussions are still under way with at least some of the other parties. I appreciate that you will not be able to give the details of the discussions, but I am interested in getting a flavour of the type and extent of changes that you anticipate. Can you give us any more insight?

I will not press any further on that. I suppose that the main reason I was asking was because I am heartened by the renewed focus on growth in this budget and the sentiment that has led to that. I anticipate that the asks will be in spend, and therefore I am asking whether protecting the focus on growth can continue.

You probably guessed that I might pick up on a couple of those things. You mentioned housing. There is a big increase in the budget for affordable housing. I very much welcome that. Can the benefits of that—the multifactor economic benefits of house building in particular—be brought about quickly enough? It is not just about building more houses quickly; it is also about attracting private capital and about the sense of ambition and the mood music that the Government is giving out. Can that be done quickly enough, so that we will start to see real figures emerging in terms of actual delivery against projections? Will that more quickly attract organisations to the table for, for example, the critical issue of build to rent?

That would be very helpful.

I am mindful of SNIB’s evidence to the committee that, because of year-end, there is a hard date. It cited a specific example of when it was trying to close a deal before year-end. If you could bear with me for a minute while I find the text in my notes. SNIB said:

“Last year, we got to 31 March and we did not know whether were going to be able to complete a £50 million deal according to the rules.”

I encourage the cabinet secretary, or whoever the most appropriate person is, to find out the latest status on that, because 31 March and, therefore, the potential to close other deals, is not that far away.

SNIB added:

“We got it done, and we did not compromise our underwriting in doing so”.—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 25 September 2024; c 28],

However, it commented that the need to get a deal done while fitting in with the rules could be played against it.

That is heartening and very good news, indeed.