Chamber and committees

Audit Scotland has also talked about the complexity of delivering NSET. We have taken on board its recommendations on the need for political leadership, on finance, on metrics and on evaluation more generally. Tracking the cumulative spend relating to a strategy as vast as NSET continues to be tricky, and I am still strongly of the view that it is counterproductive.

We take on board such things and are looking at ways of using new corporate systems to better track spend on prioritised actions. I hope that the committee hears my reluctance and concern about trying to boil NSET down to a particular budget rather than trying to embed the NSET aims, which are to encourage innovation, attract new finance and do things differently. Those are all laudable aims, and the Government becomes its own worst enemy when it tries to boil the strategy down into one siloed area or one pot of funding.

I will ask Aidan Grisewood to come in. You talked about directorates, and he oversees the work from the officials’ side.

Yes. I could take each of the five opportunity areas, including hydrogen, and tell you about where I think we need far greater and closer collaboration with the UK Government. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is quite an obvious area in which we ultimately need the UK Government to make an investment in Scotland’s opportunity. When it comes to some of the other areas, the big issue that people raise with me, and which they will raise with members consistently, is grid connection. More generally on where we need close collaboration, we ultimately cannot deliver the full scale of our ambition for the five opportunity areas without close alignment with UK Government strategies on them all. I suppose that that is the general gist of my response to the question.

I will give you an update. It might be helpful to remind the committee of the background of that expression of interest linked to Forsyth Black. He was the chairman of the board and resigned from it to ensure an independent and fair assessment. He stepped back from his duties immediately upon disclosing that he was linked to an expression of interest, and the Scottish Government and Prestwick airport subsequently agreed that he would have to resign rather than be temporarily removed from his post. He does not have inside knowledge of competing bids to purchase the airport, as no formal bids have been received.

I do not feel that it would be appropriate for me to share further details, including the number or identity of any other organisations behind an expression of interest, at this time. That is not to say that we cannot come back to Parliament when there is something on which to update you in due course.

Yes, I will. Thank you very much for having me back. If I recall correctly, the last time that we met was in May, when we were in the pre-election period, which might have constrained aspects of what I could say. Therefore, I am delighted to be back in front of the committee and able to speak slightly more freely in that regard.

When I returned to the Government in May, there had been plans for an NSET refresh, but I decided that that was not the direction that I wanted to go in. The first reason for that was that the First Minister made it clear in the first few days of his tenure that he wanted fewer documents written and more actions delivered, and the idea of refreshing a strategy and all the work that would go with that, only a couple of years into a 10-year strategy, did not seem like the best use of our time.

The second reason was that, to my mind, there was an opportunity with the programme for government to clarify the actions that we were going to focus on. All the actions are very much aligned with NSET, so the programme for government allowed us to be really clear, with stakeholders and Parliament, about the priorities.

Thirdly, my sense of NSET has always been that some actions will be easier or more straightforward to deliver. My officials might correct me, but I think that 25 per cent of the actions are complete, while 54 per cent are in progress. Some of the completed actions include the roll-out of Techscaler, which I think still largely enjoys the support of all parties in Parliament. We have been able to make progress on those elements.

Other things require greater focus and attention from us. One example would be attracting investment, and there was a lot in the programme for government about how we are going to accelerate those actions in NSET.

Those are some of the reasons for our deciding that, in the spirit of the First Minister’s commitment to write less and do more, we should write less and do more with the resources that we have.

Tourism is prioritised both in my diary and in my engagement with stakeholders. Indeed, at the Thistle awards on Friday night, we recognised the brilliant work that tourism businesses do. VisitScotland plays an important role in that regard—its marketing spend delivered around £56.7 million of additional net economic benefit. We are aware of the great work that VisitScotland does; it is accountable in part to the industry, too, and I hope that the industry is confident in the work that it does. I certainly am.

You have talked about the challenging decisions that we have had to take. I do not think that any part of the Scottish Government’s budget has been immune to some of those difficult decisions. I am quite relieved that, as far as my budget area is concerned, there has not been a huge impact since the summer. We have had an impact on VisitScotland. Obviously, that is a matter of concern, but there is work that VisitScotland can do. The impact was on the marketing budget, and I have discussed with VisitScotland how it can do more in-house work instead of outsourcing it. I have shared with VisitScotland my disappointment and concern, but those are the realities of the extremely challenging financial environment in which we are operating.

I can absolutely clarify that Mark Logan is definitely not a special adviser. It is very important to note that he has not in any way been recruited as a special adviser; he is not a political appointment. I have encouraged him in the past to engage with other parties in the Parliament—and I think he has taken that on board. That includes briefing people on what is being done, taking on board any views, thoughts and ideas. I have to say explicitly that he is not, and can never be, a political appointment.

In the private sector, a business whose entire focus was on a particular end and aim would think it quite strange to be asked to provide the budget for that end and aim. The whole point of the national strategy for economic transformation is that the entire Government needs to focus on it.

I would like every penny that the Government spends to be spent on ways to innovate. For example, the entire health budget is spent on improving people’s health and wellbeing. We can do that effectively through NSET by attracting as much investment as possible into the country, so that we can increase the revenue that is available to reinvest in the health service. We can also do that through innovation and finding better ways of doing things.

I understand where you are coming from, but I knowing how these things go—the minute that I publish a figure, it will immediately exclude areas that I really want to be more about innovation and the NSET aims. Also, in parliamentary debates, people get hung up on particular figures, which completely undermines the whole point that the NSET way of thinking should be embedded in every portfolio.

I have touched on that issue in the past. It is a matter of concern, particularly in rural coastal areas, where, in some cases, there are double-digit percentage forecasts of decline for the next 40 years. Perhaps that picture masks the ageing demographics, because the impact on the working-age population is more stark.

The figures that we discussed in Shetland on Monday were quite concerning with regard to the expected growth in the over-50 population and the significant shrinking of the working-age population, given the strain that that will cause. That is why it is imperative that we take a cross-Government and cross-nation approach to economic prosperity. Too often, we assume that economic activity happens only in the private sector. However, we have third sector organisations and good work can be done in collaboration with the public sector, and that needs to be distributed around the country as much as possible.

Because of the role that Ferguson Marine plays, we have always wanted it to have a long and sustainable future. Clearly, the short-term objective—which, I hope, will soon come to a conclusion—was to deliver both vessels. Over and above that, however, I believe that Ferguson Marine’s future is in competing internationally for new orders. Over the past few years, it has been totally focused on delivering the two vessels. Now that some of that work is coming to a conclusion, there is an opportunity to reinvest in the yard in order to make it fit for purpose and able to compete. For example, some of the funding could be invested in facilities that are more in line with all other successful yards of that size and type.

There has been a lot of due diligence work. You will know that the original bid was rejected. The new bid is undergoing due diligence to make sure that we can make that investment.