Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Professor Roy. You are selling Aberdeen very well—better than some of the folk from the area, who often take a much more pessimistic line.

Professor Bell, I want to concentrate on planning, policy and data, because it is extremely important that we get those aspects right. Earlier, we discussed the transferability of skills. Aberdeen and the north-east are awash with immensely skilled people. However, you said that skills development in the area has come too late. How do we change that at UK level, as far as investment is concerned? How can we also get it right at Scotland level, so that we manage the just transition and do not put folk from the oil and gas industry, and others, on the scrap heap, as happened to the miners a number of years back?

Both of you have highlighted in your answers to earlier questions that attracting the right people requires investment by not only the Government but the private sector. If we do not have such planning, and do not get it absolutely right, will not the private sector be much more averse to making such investments?

I thank Professor Roy for highlighting the north-east premium, which we should all take note of. In doing that, we should also ensure that there is no regional contraction and that we get it right for every region in Scotland.

Elsewhere in the world, there has been major investment in the move to net zero. The green new deal in the United States has brought in $234 billion and there has been investment in Scotland in the north-east and Moray through the just transition fund. The Labour Party promised £28 billion a year for green initiatives, but that sum has contracted quite dramatically. That investment—if it is there—should drive change.

I want to concentrate on jobs and data. Professor Bell said that we require clarity on data. The Climate Change Committee published analysis that suggested that there is the potential to create between 135,000 and 725,000 jobs across the UK by 2030 in new low-carbon sectors. Can I ask about that data? What assumptions might you have made in reaching those figures and how accurate do you think that some of that data is?

You talked about getting the planning right. Quite frankly, I would like to keep the people that Aberdeen and the north-east have gained over the piece. In relation to your report and to other discussions, there are obviously major concerns about the mismatch between the timing of the switching off of the old industries and the switching on of new industries. We all recognise that the oil and gas sector is in its twilight years. However, as Professor Roy said, it is not at an end and we will require oil and gas into the future. We should be endeavouring to make sure that we are also creating other jobs as oil and gas jobs diminish.

On planning and policy, do you think that the UK Government’s recent announcements, such as the chancellor’s statement, provide the planning and the policy to get this right, or is it a case that such announcements have been driven by current fiscal situations rather than getting it right for a just transition?

Thank you, convener.

You have touched on award letters and letters of comfort and, indeed, on parliamentary budgeting processes, which often have a major impact on some of those letters. You probably heard me ask the previous panel about what the chancellor should do when she gets to her feet on 30 October, but what does the chancellor need to do about multiyear funding, fair pay and the other issues that we have talked about today?

Good morning. We have covered a lot of ground today: multiyear funding, flexible funding, inflation adjustments, the real living wage—the list goes on. However, over a number of years, the austerity agenda has continued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will get to her feet on 30 October to deliver her first budget. What would your message to her be?

That is a good steer. You said that that is within directorates.

I have a question for Rachel Cackett about mental wellbeing and social care. The adult mental health and wellbeing fund is distributed by TSIs. That is different from how we funded the children’s equivalent, which was done through local authorities. Is that confusing for the third sector? Would the sector like some uniformity in such processes, for example?

Rachel, should there be a three-year, a five-year or a 10-year spending review?

Should that include a multiyear spending review, rather than an annual budget, which is what we have seen far too often of late?

I have a devil’s advocate question for Euan Leith about his commentary on the different forms of application in Government and how the cake is split. Let us take some examples that Euan will be aware of. In relation to capital regeneration funding, the Government is in agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that it has a major part to play in the allocation of funding. The Corra Foundation has done a huge amount of the legwork in some of the scenarios that have come about of late, such as funding for health and social care for addiction. There are scenarios in which the Government has agreed that others become involved in processes. I take it that you are not arguing for universality of decision making—or perhaps you are, I do not know. Could that be streamlined, or do we just need to communicate better how those things are done?