Seòmar agus comataidhean

To clarify, it was the Secretary of State for Scotland who said that the decision would be a feature of the spending review.

What you have just said relates to my final question, so I will ask that before you bring in your team to respond to my question about the formal metrics.

Do you view the growth deals as just another means of delivering projects, or do you view them as the principal means of delivering infrastructure, particularly regional infrastructure? If the latter, that has quite a big bearing on how we think about things such as the medium-term financial strategy and the spending review, which we have talked about. Are the deals the primary means of delivery, or are they just one means of delivery?

I always think that the way to value something is in comparison with the best alternative forgone. Is there a way that you can measure the value of the growth deals compared with what we would have if they did not exist?

We are in danger of Ivan McKee becoming a moveable transaction himself and leaving to go elsewhere, so I conclude there. Thank you very much for your answers.

I accept that there may not be an answer to this, and I accept that tracking delivery against what was promised is important at project level, but what I am asking is slightly different. Can we demonstrate at that aggregate level that the growth deal structures are delivering additional value over and above just being a mechanism for delivering projects? That is probably too esoteric a question. If we are saying that this is a good vehicle for delivering projects, it is interesting to ask whether we can demonstrate that and measure that benefit.

I am mindful that Ivan McKee is eagerly waiting to talk about moveable transactions, so I will attempt to keep this as brief as possible, although I do not have a great track record on that count.

I want to come back to some of the things that Murdo Fraser asked about, which also relate to what Colin Smyth said. You said that you do not think that it would be appropriate to copy and paste structures from England. However, if you look at the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and if you remove firefighters from its headcount, it employs only around 500 people, covering quite a broad scope of different functions, including economic development, skills and education, and elements of public health. That is less than half of the headcount at Scottish Enterprise. It is quite a lightweight structure.

In Scotland, is there an overfocus on the mayor and an underfocus on the fact that it is a combined authority whose members are the constituent local authorities, which gives you one place to go and talk? I hear what you are saying about regional economic partnerships, but right now, in Scotland, at a regional level, we have quite a number of different places where you could go to talk. It could be the growth deal partners, it could be the regional economic partnership, or it could even be the health board, depending on what you want to do. What we do not have is one place where you can talk to your local authorities. Should you be looking at that and thinking about replicating that function? It is not about the structure; it is about the function.

Although an announcement has been made about the development in Oxford, that is not in place of the exascale computer in Edinburgh, which is still under consideration. Given that the Deputy First Minister is taking such a keen interest in the issue, has she had dialogue and discussions on the importance of the exascale computer and, more broadly, the spending review?

I accept that, but are there metrics nonetheless, albeit that they will not capture everything?

And in agreement with Murdo Fraser as well, I think.

I have some questions about the Registers of Scotland (Fees and Plain Copies) Miscellaneous Amendments Order 2025. I thank Murdo Fraser, because the flock of sheep serves as a useful example. For a shepherd who wants to borrow against a flock of sheep, not only does registering need to be cost effective but—critically—so does updating the register in order to maintain accurate and current information on the asset that has been borrowed against.

I want to ask about the schedule of charges. You set out in your submission that, following consultation, you reduced the registration fee from £80 to £30. How was the level of £30 arrived at? Does the Government feel that that is the right level, given that the Law Society of Scotland, in its submission, points out that registration fees are considerably lower in other jurisdictions? The Law Society offers the examples of Australia and New Zealand, where the registration fee is about £7, while comparable situations, such as registering mortgages, or registering a company with Companies House, are charged at £15.

Although I understand that £30 is not an astronomical amount of money, it is still more than those sums. How was it arrived at, and what is the Government’s view on what the level of fee does with regard to ensuring that an accurate register is maintained?