���˿���

There has to be evidence. I know that we disagree about the green freeport in Cromarty, but it is a good example of what we are talking about, so I hope that you will permit me to talk about it. It has a target of achieving several billion pounds in investment, which translates to thousands of jobs. Therefore, I believe that there should be an expectation that thousands of houses will be built in that area. I believe that that is the evidence that communities want in relation to housing.

Retrofit is one of the ways to go, but we must also add to supply. Our approach is not just about retrofitting old and cold homes; it is also about building more homes—that is the evidence base that people will see. We can talk about how the approach is succeeding, but communities will only believe it when they see bricks and mortar, and when they see the creation of secure and well-paid employment.

The report that you mentioned generated headlines that referenced “apocalyptic” conditions for the industry. That is not the just transition that we believe in. We stand squarely behind the industry as it seeks to transition.

On our policy objectives, we will not do anything that risks 100,000 jobs, as others propose to do. We just will not do it. We have long talked of the just transition. There are two words in that phrase. First, it must be just: it must support people and workers and it cannot leave people behind. Also, it is a transition. We have never proposed to turn the taps off or to apply other policies that threaten the existence of an industry that is key to the north-east.

Your question was about how we can rebuild confidence. We can do so in a number of ways. First, we can do it by ensuring that there is clarity in our objectives, aims and policies. That means working with the industry and walking with it as it invests in green industry. However, that is a process: it is about looking at planning and consenting.

As you know, the most important levers are not within our control. We have never disagreed that there should be a proportionate windfall tax, but when it poses a risk to 100,000 jobs, that is a problem. Those levers are obviously with the UK Government, but we want to work constructively, stand for Scottish industry and jobs and make it clear when policies threaten those jobs.

Okay.

I have obviously not been around for the past two years, but on the progress that has been made, I absolutely refute the notion that there is a delivery gap. Scotland’s productivity has grown at an average annual rate of 1 per cent, compared with the UK average of 0.4 per cent. You cannot dispute those figures—they are from the Office for National Statistics.

NSET is our north star. It is clear about how we improve our economic factors according to the international average. That remains our focus, and I think that there is a lot to celebrate in the Scottish economy. I do not propose to do much more writing; I propose to do as much delivery and implementation as possible.

I would be really concerned if we reduced the NSET to just one budget line—

I always engage constructively with Audit Scotland reports. I find them very useful in terms of highlighting where more progress needs to be made—that includes the relevant report. My problem is with your question and not with the Audit Scotland report.

As I said, Audit Scotland often shines a light on different areas in which we need to make more progress. However, I disagree fundamentally with your proposition that you should reduce NSET to a budget line.

We are committed to that, but when our budget is determined by another Government deciding how much money to give us, and in what form, there is a ceiling to the assurances that we can give. We can give an assurance that the bank is a priority, that we are really proud of it, that it has an important role to play and that we will do our level best to protect it. Ultimately, however, the funding comes from a budget that is determined by another Government.

There are examples of the Scottish National Investment Bank joining forces with others. For example, an investment of £100 million in the regeneration of Ardersier port was announced a couple of weeks ago. That was done in collaboration, with the bank and the UK Government each providing £50 million to create that £100 million package. Those opportunities for collaboration are also important.

In answering that, I go back to my experience in my previous job. They have really fluctuated. The UK Government became really interested in financial transactions in 2016 or 2017, when there was a rapid increase in use of them as a means of funding. There were various reasons for that. The UK Government was using financial transactions as a means of funding its own house building initiatives. I am very conscious that you are sitting next to the former housing minister, who will probably be able to speak more knowledgeably about housing budgets. The UK Government has severely cut the house building that it is doing, and that has had an impact on the consequential financial transactions that have been given to the Scottish Government.

This is crystal ball territory. I can neither tell you what will happen in the next few weeks, nor can I tell you how keen the next UK Government will be on financial transactions, or whether it will be keen on them at all. We find ourselves in the remarkable position of trying to budget for policy areas that rely on long-term certainty without having any long-term certainty of our own.

No—not at all. We have made a commitment to capitalise the bank, and we will capitalise the bank. In a sense, how we manage our budget in such a way that we continue to capitalise the bank is our problem. It is simply the case that that would be a lot easier to do if we knew what budget was coming to us.

However, it was definitely not short-sighted to establish the Scottish National Investment Bank using financial transactions. That is an obvious funding stream for our national investment bank. It makes sense to use financial transactions. It is a form of funding that a bank in its position, whereby it lends and then makes returns, really needs. It would probably have been quite short-sighted of us not to have used financial transactions in that way. That would have been a huge wasted opportunity.