Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener.

I note what was said earlier about sharing best practice, and I am really interested to hear specifically about the lessons that have been learned from the existing deals. Many of them are now quite mature, so the committee has been talking about what another tranche of deals would look like. Overall, it seems that quite a lot of positive has come from those deals, but if we were to do this again—if we decided that it is worth while for multiple levels of Government and industry to work together to create such deals—what would you do differently and what would be the same? Is it worth doing again? What lessons have been learned? What would we keep and what would we change for next time?

I want to thank you very much for coming this morning, secretary of state. Your predecessor did not accept invitations to give evidence to this Parliament, and we are delighted that you have.

The committee has taken substantial evidence on the benefits of collaborative long-term working between levels of government and industry, which some of these deals have supported. Many of the projects have been grass roots-led and prioritise sustainability and innovation. However, that is not true for all the projects. In the older regional deals, there are some dinosaur road and car-based projects initiated by Transport Scotland, of which the Sheriffhall roundabout—which I know the secretary of state will be familiar with—is the one with which I am most familiar. My question is on the same theme as that pursued by Jamie Halcro Johnston. It appears that Transport Scotland could not get that project prioritised or funded through normal means, so it has turned to the deal. However, it is a bit of a dinosaur. It was proposed before any Government in the UK had declared a climate emergency and before the Scottish Government had set a target to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent, and there is a grass-roots local campaign against it.

The project is stuck. It is demonstrably not being built, but if you ask any level of government why we cannot reprioritise the funds or change up the project, the answer is always because it is part of the region deal and down to “that Government”, with everyone pointing fingers, which means that we cannot change anything. The question is how Governments can, with democratic mandates that change over time, adjust these longer projects to align with current priorities. It just feels like hands are tied.

I also have a question about the future. How do you see any new tranche of city region deals—and I am interested in whether you think that a new tranche of deals is a good idea—fitting into the investment that is needed to green the economy and to transition away from fossil fuels and restore nature? Given the urgency of the climate crisis, should that be a primary aim of any future deals?

I wondered whether now is a good time for me to ask my question because it follows on from yours, convener. Is that all right?

Okay. Thank you very much. I challenge some of those points. The project was not brought forward by the grass roots—it was brought forward by Transport Scotland—and it has not been possible to reassess it because of the structure of the deal. However, I appreciate the answer.

On a more positive note, I suppose, I think that the secretary of state will acknowledge that the newer deals seem to be a bit more grass roots and focus more on innovation and sustainability. What next? Will there be a new tranche of city region deals? What should those look like?

The next question is around housing. The committee has taken much evidence from different sectors, and we heard over and over again about how housing is a blocker, from scaling up renewables to the regeneration of rural areas. We even have a housing emergency in Edinburgh, as we saw with the crisis before Christmas.

What are the DFM’s thoughts on housing issues being a blocker to economic success and green sector growth? How much can the budget do to tackle that?

My final question is about the coherence of the budget with other Government strategy. There are a lot of economic strategies on the table, including the national strategy for economic transformation and the green industrial strategy—and we are still waiting for the energy strategy. Then there is going to be a climate plan. It is often difficult to see a coherent picture of how the budget is helping to deliver those—for example, how road-building funding in the budget is helping us to work towards net zero or the Scottish Government’s target on traffic reduction. If the Government decides to go forward with road building, how is it investing elsewhere to reduce the consequential carbon emissions and traffic in order to meet its goals?

The question is: how is the Scottish Government evidencing that its budget decisions are coherent with its stated objectives?

I have a supplementary to Murdo Fraser’s question. Large parts of the budgets that go to the enterprise agencies are for direct handouts such as grants and loans. I asked the agencies how they evaluate the effectiveness of outcomes from doing that versus giving other sorts of support. It is giving a man a fish as opposed to teaching a man how to fish. When budgets are challenged, how do the agencies measure the effectiveness of interventions versus just handing out money?

They were unable to. Only South of Scotland Enterprise said that it is starting to collect that data. I am not sure how you evaluate the budgets that you give the enterprise agencies if we are not able to understand the impact of their different types of working.

I hear you saying that you want to get money out of the door. Everyone loves a handout and being given money, but maybe it is more effective to have a few more public sector workers teaching people how to get their own funding than it is to hand public money to private enterprises. We do not appear to have the data to establish that.

I do not have any interests that are relevant to the work of the committee. However, for the record, I reiterate my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I used to work for Orbital Marine Power, which is a tidal energy company. I am also a member of Unite the union.