���˿���

One or two of you have already mentioned local place plans. How do you see them ultimately influencing the LDPs that local authorities have had for many years? Are you beginning to see some influence either in your own areas or other areas that you might have knowledge of? Perhaps you could share a few thoughts about how the process will or should work.

Okay. If there are no more requests to come in, I will thank you very much for your response to my questions.

Good morning, everybody. I would like to ask you for your thoughts on the six broad principles of NPF4. First, though, I should perhaps remind everyone, including ourselves, what those principles are: just transition; conserving and recycling; local living; compact urban growth; rebalanced development; and rural revitalisation. Can you share with us any examples that show early signs of these broad principles being embraced either in your local areas or in other areas that you might have knowledge of, just to give us a sense of whether we are, indeed, beginning to embrace these ideas? David, would you like to kick off?

I have a final question that does not, I think, encroach on questions that colleagues will ask. Do you think that all these plans and strategies—the local place plans and so on—should play a role in how we improve the look and feel of our high streets in Scotland’s towns and villages? When I talk to local people about this sort of stuff, they look at me and say, “How is that gonnae improve what we see around us? All we see are urban dereliction, empty shops and abandonment.” That theme has run through our discussions on and considerations of NPF4 over the past year or so. Are people right to expect local place plans to reach into those areas to try to address and solve some of those kinds of problems? If they do not, some people, particularly those who live in urban settings, might ask, “What‘s the point?” Are you aware of that town centre and high street issue? How can these principles reach out and try to solve some of these things?

We on the Public Audit Committee love timeframes and targets—we live by them—and we and the public make judgments about whether the Government has met them. Although the targets are helpful, the closer you can get to such a reshaped reporting mechanism, the better it will be for us. Looking forward to the next report, it would be of great benefit to have reshaped reporting on timeframes and targets that can be and have been achieved.

I would like to ask about the regional dimension of the national strategy. I represent Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley, which is in Ayrshire. What is in it for people in my constituency? From the Auditor General’s report and some of your comments earlier, all that I know about is the £50 million for just transition, the £42 million for Techscaler—I know what Techscaler is—and so on, the £25 million for ScotWind projects and the £10 million for hydrogen projects. There is a variety of projects, some of which you mentioned, as well as the 25,000 homes that have been connected through R100.

How do we show the various regions of Scotland that they are part of the national strategy and that we are all benefiting? In the framework, you talk about regional inequalities. In any further reporting, I would expect to see information on how the strategy reaches the various regions. I am sure that colleagues will feel the same way. What is in the strategy for us in our various parts of Scotland? I am particularly interested in Ayrshire and what our slice of this cake is. How do you plan to develop that aspect?

That would be appreciated.

The fact that the UK Government’s planned project gigabit scheme is a £5 billion scheme would suggest that Scotland should receive some £450 million in consequentials to take many of the premises in question to gigabit capacity. Do we have that money yet?

Let us put it to the test, convener.

Good morning. Before I ask about reporting and evaluation plans, I want to return to a point that was made by one of my colleagues about the roll-out of the broadband programme. I think that he suggested that it was the UK Government that funded that. However, as we all know, the Scottish Government funded it, despite its being a reserved UK matter, to the tune of about £600 million. If memory serves me right, the UK Government’s contribution to that was £49 million—in other words, about 10 per cent of the input from the Scottish Government. Gregor Irwin, could you confirm that those figures are reasonably accurate?

I simply make a plea—I am sure that other members will agree—for us to be able to see on a regional basis, if at all possible, what the shared benefits are, because at the moment it is difficult to see that. For the R100 programme, it is easy to see that. We can see that throughout our constituencies and regions, but I would certainly appreciate it, from the point of view of the bigger picture, if that regional outlook was woven into the fabric of the supporting mechanism so that we can see that taking place.

Thank you.

I appreciate that, but some of the projects that I mentioned a moment ago are items of national spend. They are the result of a national strategic decision—a Scottish decision—to spend on targeted areas of the economy. When my constituents knock on my constituency office door and say, “Where are ours?”, what do I say to them?