Official Report 540KB pdf
Item 4 is continuation of our scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s draft budget for 2014-15. We will take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney. He is joined by John Mason, who is director of business, and Mary McAllan, who is director of energy and climate change in the Scottish Government. I welcome you all.
The committee will be familiar with the information that I set out to Parliament in the statement on the budget. I am happy to let that stand and to answer questions.
Thank you.
Good afternoon. Given the divergence of views on whether we are in an economic recovery and on whether we are about to see another housing bubble, with the consequences that that might have, will you expand on your view of the UK economy and its relationship to your budget plans for next year and thereafter?
First, my view is that we are in an economic recovery. It remains a fragile recovery, but we are undoubtedly recovering.
Last week, I attended a dinner with the Industrial and Power Association. There is a lot of optimism in respect of the opportunities that it will be afforded over the next few years, but one concern is the level of general funding that is available for capital investment. What discussions have you had with the appropriate funding authorities—the banks—on funding for those investment opportunities?
We talk constantly to the banks that are active in the Scottish marketplace, and we encourage banks that are not currently active in it to become so. Our ensuring the competitive availability of bank finance to support investment is crucial for enabling companies to make their decisions about investment.
If I may, I will dwell on capital investment rather than resource spend. We heard evidence last week, or the week before, on the Government’s continuing plans to shift spend to capital. There was a suggestion that that is a misplaced allocation because of leakage from increased capital spend. What view was or is being taken of leakage from capital, as opposed to leakage from resource spend?
My first point is that the Government has gone to great lengths over the past five years to prioritise capital investment where we can. We supplement our capital departmental expenditure limit applications with a variety of other funding mechanisms to boost capital expenditure, including resource-to-capital transfers, use of the regulated asset base, non-profit distributing programmes’ capital receipts and, from 2015-16, the borrowing powers that Parliament will acquire.
I understand that, but has the multiplier effect of capital versus resource been established?
Yes. Capital expenditure has a higher economic multiplier than resource expenditure has. Those factors are taken into consideration by the Government when we prioritise at a time when our capital budget is reducing. Should we act to get that budget back up to where it would have been, or to exceed that? Do we think that that is the right thing to do? Of course we do, because capital expenditure has a more significant multiplier than resource expenditure.
Can I ask two more small questions?
You are moving on; Mike MacKenzie has a supplementary on the broader issue of capital and revenue.
When we look at the data, it seems that over the past few years the Scottish economy has been diverging from the rest of the UK, and that performance—based on whatever criteria we use—seems to be slightly better than the rest of the UK. Do you attribute that to the shift from resource to capital that has been the theme of the spending review?
The statistics speak for themselves. Based on the last data that were available prior to the budget statement, Scottish gross domestic product grew by 1.2 per cent, compared to 0.3 per cent in the UK as a whole. Prioritisation of capital investment has been at the heart of that performance.
If you had more flexibility—more powers, if you like—what would you like to do?
One of the core interventions that I would make if I had more responsibility would be on the level of capital expenditure. We would have sustained a much more significant level of capital expenditure, had we had the option to do so. I have made no secret of that and I think that we would have seen a more beneficial economic impact than the one that we have seen.
On the leakage that Chic Brodie touched on, we have heard quite a lot of concern from witnesses about how much capital spend is not actually making its way into the broader economy. To give you an example, it has been suggested that for the new Forth crossing project—the Queensferry crossing as we have to call it now—400 Spanish workers are coming over to live in temporary accommodation. Is that something that you are familiar with? Is that a concern?
I am certainly aware that there are people from other countries working in Scotland. When I go to the supermarket in Blairgowrie, I sometimes feel as if I am in a supermarket in Bratislava, given the buzz that is going on round about me. People moving to seek employment is economic mobility.
The Government’s programme is very much based on the principle that in creating infrastructure, capital spend will create jobs. However, the point that some witnesses have made to us is that if a proportion of those jobs are going not to people who are Scottish residents but to people who come here and live in temporary accommodation, most of that money will not be spent here but will be sent back home. Are the multipliers that you are using accurate? Does the Scottish Government assess where the people who are working on the infrastructure projects are from and where the spending is going?
As far as I am aware, we do not assess where people working on such projects are from. We certainly monitor performance on procurement success by companies. In the data that I have on procurement, 80 per cent of the successful businesses that won contracts through public contracts Scotland, which is the portal that advertises all public sector work in Scotland, had Scottish addresses. I can give the committee the comfort of that data.
Is that 80 per cent of the value of the contracts or of the number of contracts?
That is a percentage of the number of contracts.
Do we know the breakdown in terms of value?
I do not have the value figures in front of me, but we will explore whether we can provide the committee with them.
I am sure that if we do that exercise we will also do the corollary, which is to find out how much we enjoy from Scots engineers working in Brazil, Nigeria and elsewhere. That is a difficult exercise. I understand the point that you were trying to make, convener, but I think that it might be slightly misplaced.
On business start-ups, the committee is very familiar with the structure that we have in place for business development in Scotland, which is predicated on advice being available, through the business gateway, to any individual in the country who wishes to start up a business in any locality. It is necessary to ensure that that service is effective for the needs of individuals in all parts of the country.
Regarding airport posters, there is evidence that the subliminal and repetitive catching of the eye can have a major impact. That is why I used the example of airport posters, but thank you for that answer.
Good afternoon, cabinet secretary. By the way, I am delighted to hear that you are a modern man who takes part in the supermarket shopping. You are to be applauded on that.
There are a number of ways in which the Government and private sector can help business growth in Scotland. First, the Government can help SMEs by maintaining the small business bonus scheme, which offers practical assistance with companies’ costs. Secondly, it can make available convenient and easy-to-access training interventions and employment support incentives to make it easier for companies to take on extra staff. The thought of taking on one other person might seem rather pedestrian, but it can be a huge undertaking if a small business is a sole trader. We have to be alert and make sure that our programmes are focused and easy to access.
Do you think that the events that you have mentioned as happening in 2014—the Ryder cup, the Commonwealth games, homecoming, and the world sheepdog championships, which are coming to Scotland for the first time—will provide an opportunity for small businesses to take part? Will 2014 open the door to them and allow them to access greater finance, especially in the hospitality sector?
Those events are crucial because they provide opportunities for people to visit Scotland and there will be spin-off benefits to local organisations as a consequence. For my sins, I recently took part in the Perth kilt run. At the end of that auspicious day, as I either raced or stumbled over the finishing line, there was a great paraphernalia of entertainment, activities and businesses providing catering services to the event, which attracted several thousand people. All the catering companies were local SMEs, and many of them started their business at the farmers market in Perth. They have gone up through the different levels of going into premises and supplying organisations and now they are able to come to such events to provide excellent services and quality produce.
Do you expect the business gateway and Scottish Enterprise, for instance, to be slightly more proactive in 2014?
I expect the business gateway and Scottish Enterprise always to be proactive. In addition, local chambers of commerce are running events in their localities on how companies can make something of the Commonwealth games opportunity. Not just Glasgow Chamber of Commerce but chambers of commerce around the country are doing that, because they can see the opportunities that will arise. There should be every opportunity for our networks, and I applaud Scottish Chambers of Commerce’s activities to get companies to see the possibilities.
Alison Johnstone has to leave at 1 pm, so I will bring her in.
Thank you, convener. I want to touch on a couple of issues that have been raised. We heard that the transfer from resource to capital is designed to boost the economy. In relation to modern apprenticeships, construction is still severely gender segregated. That applies to construction as a whole—there are women involved in construction, but are they at the front end making a good living or are they in less well-paid jobs?
The Government must be constantly focused on doing more in that area. The statistics on modern apprenticeship starts in 2012-13 show a split of 57 per cent male and 43 per cent female, so there is clearly an imbalance. The imbalance is not as marked as it is in other walks of life, but the difference is not acceptable.
How robustly is the budget equality impact assessed? When you say, “We will spend this on this,” is there an overview of how that will afford the greatest employment opportunities to the greatest sector of society?
We carry out an equality impact assessment on the budget at portfolio and proposition level. The information is amassed and fed into the equality statement that I publish alongside the budget. It is a substantial piece of work to put that together.
As you will know, the national performance framework seeks to provide
The Government’s purpose has been defined as to create
I think that Hanzala Malik—
I would like to add to the answer that I gave on equalities issues. I go to the Equal Opportunities Committee every year—I imagine that I will go there this year. It has had a sustained and probing interest in equalities and in strengthening the equalities assessment that the Government undertakes, and I welcome that dialogue.
Hanzala Malik wants to come in on the issue of equalities.
Good afternoon and welcome to the committee, cabinet secretary. I will ask about two equalities issues.
One point about acting on employment issues is that we get into territory where we do not have legislative competence. Many employment issues are reserved to the UK Government. However, we have control over aspects of the procurement and contracting regime, through which we can apply some constraints. The context is that what we can do is limited because of the reservation of employment law, but I do not want that to sound as if I am saying that we can do nothing. We can do plenty of things on contract activity.
My first question was on how we monitor the situation, and my point was that that is not being done. I am looking to you to try to find a system in which we ensure that it is actually done. Although most employers have glossy magazines and contracts that state that they employ people from minority communities, in practice, that is not happening and no one is challenging that.
A moment ago, I talked about the work that Angela Constance is taking forward. She is involved in direct discussion with employers about their commitments to take on new staff. That is about young people and people from ethnic minorities, and trying to tackle the gender issues that we are concerned about. I assure Mr Malik that that is part of what the Government is doing. I will look again at whether our enterprise agencies and Skills Development Scotland could take further steps to support the process.
I appreciate that—thank you.
Dennis Robertson has a supplementary question on equalities.
I endorse the statement that the cabinet secretary made about the Equal Opportunities Committee. I am a former member of that committee and during its meetings asked the cabinet secretary questions, so he will not be surprised that I am going to ask about people with disabilities. Of course, they go across the gender spectrum and the spectrum of ethnic minorities. Are the figures collated only on people with disabilities as a separate group, or are they collated in terms of, say, women with disabilities or people from ethnic minorities with disabilities? Obviously, the approach will impact on the figures for women or people from ethnic minorities who go into apprenticeships, for example.
At the moment, I cannot say to Mr Robertson whether there is that cross-referencing or gender disaggregation on disability, but I would be surprised if there was not. Similarly, I cannot answer today whether there is a disaggregation in relation to people with disabilities and ethnic minority status, but I will check those points and advise the committee.
Good afternoon. I want to focus my questions on modern apprentices. How ready are they for work? Are we giving them the right skills for the opportunities that are out there? I note from the level 2 figures that there is quite a substantial reduction in the funding for employability, skills and lifelong learning, from £267.2 million in 2013-14 to £239.9 million in 2014-15—and the figure reduces further in 2015-16. How are we going to match up-and-coming young people to the opportunities that are out there in the economy if we are reducing that budget?
First, I believe that, by the time young people have gone through modern apprenticeships, they are ready for work. The challenge in some cases is to make sure that young people are in an effective position to start some of the programmes. That is where pre-apprenticeship training is required to get young people into a position where they are ready to participate in the training programme. Once they are in the modern apprenticeship programme, I have every confidence in its ability to fulfil those requirements.
Thank you for that response.
May I first make a further point on the budget line? Another specific issue is the one-off transfer for the youth employment Scotland initiative, which has come out of that line and gone elsewhere. That is another relevant factor.
The question is how successful that programme is. The committee had an external meeting on Monday at which we met businesspeople in Irvine who reiterated that young people are not ready for work because basically they do not know how to read or write. The message was that they did not have the skills required for work. In that context, the reduction in funding for adult lifelong learning is concerning.
We are putting substantial resources into adult learning in a variety of areas, whether through European funding or through the funding that is available to the Government to support programmes at the local level. From time to time, I hear arguments about young people not being ready for work, but I have seen an awful lot of such claims disintegrate before my very eyes. We can put in place a lot of support to enable young people to be ready for employment. The Government has a range of interventions in place that can assist that process.
There are a lot of interventions and agencies out there that are working with young people and adults to get them into work, but there does not seem to be any joined-up thinking on how they provide services, and it seems that not everyone knows about those services. There needs to be more joined-up thinking from agencies.
There are two different aspects. If people do not know about services, I would accept that we have a job of work to do to raise awareness. Campaigns such as the making young people your business campaign are designed to raise companies’ awareness.
At the workshop that I attended, an area manager for a supermarket said that no contact had been made with her about modern apprenticeships, which is hard to believe.
I am very happy to explore the specifics of that case. I assure the committee that Skills Development Scotland is very active in trying to ensure that we fully undertake the modern apprenticeship programme. In 2011-12, there were 26,427 modern apprenticeships, and in 2012-13, there were 25,691. The Government’s target was 25,000 in each year, so there is obviously full participation in the programme. However, I am happy to explore whether more can be done to extend communication in the area.
A developer made the very helpful suggestion that if students went to them directly rather than to a college they could train them in-house. I thought that that would be music to Mike Russell’s ears—college waiting lists are so long that it would be very helpful if industry participated in that way. Perhaps we can explore the possibility of allowing some industries to work with colleges, so that youngsters go directly to employers and achieve qualifications through a college in their area at the same time. That would ease the pressure on student numbers; more important, it would let employers train people directly in the industries that need them. That would possibly be a win-win situation.
I will make two comments on that point. First, all modern apprentices have employed status in Scotland. Every one of those 25,691 people is employed, so companies already provide significant aspects of the training opportunities. Colleges provide some training, but employers provide a substantial amount of it.
I do not want to score points, but I have constituents who are waiting for college places, so I speak from practical experience. I want to find a solution. I thought that the solution that I offered was a good one: not all courses need to be in college but colleges need to provide the qualifications. A student would enrol in college simply to ensure that the quality of education provided by the employer was of qualification standard; nevertheless, the individual would be qualified to work in industry. I thought that I was being helpful.
There are many points we could discuss around that solution. I have said my piece on college places.
On that point, when we were in Irvine on Monday, a couple of the businesses at the workshop that I chaired suggested that, instead of having modern apprentices or people involved in opportunities for all, it might be better to encourage businesses to take people on full time and train them in the company or the industry. I do not know whether that has been or might be discussed. It would take away some of the less-than-targeted argument about college places.
The point that I made about the employed status of modern apprentices is a fundamental one about the advantages of training individuals within the workplace.
We need to move on. We have not touched yet on energy efficiency, fuel poverty or energy more generally. I will bring in Marco Biagi, who is suffering a little. He will survive the next few minutes.
I will do my best.
The manner of pursuing that is agreed with the energy companies. I am confident that we have got to a position where the schemes are working much more effectively than was the case. Several years ago, there was, to be blunt, a disconnect about the energy companies being able to fulfil their commitments because they simply did not know who would benefit from the interventions that they could make.
One of the concerns that has been raised is about the regularity of the Scottish Government’s reporting. Has that been raised with the Government through other channels? Are you considering the regularity of the reporting on the outturn through the Scottish Government’s £79.2 million?
We report to Parliament on our outturn expenditure on the resources for which we have responsibility. I am not aware of representations having been made to us about reporting on that wider programme, which would involve partnership with local authorities and the energy companies, although I am pretty sure that a statistical base must be available to capture that, principally because the energy companies have to fulfil their obligations.
We have heard that figures for ECO are published almost monthly. Is it the Scottish Government’s aspiration to match that or come as close to that as possible?
I would want to consider whether we could fulfil a commitment to publish monthly figures. The Government will consider that point.
The lack of an obligation on the companies to report figures disaggregated by part of the United Kingdom has previously been a problem. Do we have a robust figure for the amount that they are spending in Scotland?
I am much more confident about the information that is available on what is spent in Scotland than I was two or three years ago. We have a much clearer position now.
Have you negotiated that figure with the companies directly or are they required to publish it by the regulations that govern the scheme?
They will be under an obligation to make a commitment across the United Kingdom. We have been able to negotiate with each of the energy companies a position on the programme that we are able to set out in the budget.
So that is one area in which it would have been helpful to have a scheme that was better designed for the interests of getting the statistics in Scotland.
Ensuring that we have interventions that are appropriate to our circumstances is a key part of what we would argue.
We have heard that the main factor that has driven fuel poverty has been the cost of energy. Do you agree?
It is a combination of the cost of energy and the need to improve the housing stock. Those are the factors that contribute to fuel poverty.
I promise that this is my last question, convener. Cabinet secretary, even if you had a blank cheque for energy efficiency, would you still come up against any non-financial barriers and, if so, what would they be?
One of the non-financial barriers is getting people to engage with the process satisfactorily. Loads of people are perfectly happy to take part in schemes to improve energy efficiency and reduce their bills, but lots of people who would benefit from full participation in the schemes do not participate. Trying to raise awareness and elicit commitment is part of the process.
We heard evidence from Energy Action Scotland and others about their concern that £10 million has been taken out of the fuel poverty budget to fund mitigation measures for the underoccupancy charge in housing. Can you explain your rationale for that, given the priority that fuel poverty should have as part of the Government’s agenda?
The rationale has essentially been about the uptake of the scheme given some of the processes that we have had to go through to secure agreement about the terms of the scheme with the UK Government. We identified that, in the current financial year, we are unlikely to be able to spend all the resources that we envisage will need to be spent, so we are able to redeploy the funds to deal with the consequences of the bedroom tax.
Was there not another way in which that money could have been spent to tackle fuel poverty?
We have to make decisions about the priorities that we want to focus on. We had the opportunity to take steps to tackle the bedroom tax, which affects members of the public today in Scotland, and we took that decision.
Lastly, I want to return to Marco Biagi’s point about the ECO scheme. According to your budget for the current year, energy companies should be investing £135 million in Scotland. Do you know whether that target is being met?
I do not think that I have a progress report on that in front of me, but I would certainly be happy to share that information with the committee.
That would be helpful.
The Scottish Government has a statutory requirement to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016. From the figures that we have seen and the way things are going, it looks as though we will not meet that target. Are you confident that we will?
We have a range of measures in place that we think can contribute towards tackling fuel poverty. We will monitor progress as we work towards later financial years.
One of the issues on the underspend was the time that it takes individuals to fill in the forms and acquire the funding. Has anything been done to correct that?
The Government tries to ensure that we make these schemes as accessible as possible to members of the public. If particular obstacles arise out of that, we will ensure that they are tackled.
I notice that you have extended the period for the renewable energy investment fund. I wondered whether that was a response to concerns in the industry—which I must admit I share—about the protracted process of energy market reform in the UK Government. Is that, along with related matters such as the insufficient pace of grid investment, grid connection charges that continue to be high and high transmission charges, leading to a situation in which we are unable fully to realise our renewable energy opportunities as quickly as we may have anticipated two or three years ago?
The Government has a clear strategic direction in the encouragement of renewable energy development. We have set that out over the lifetime of this Administration and taken steps to ensure that we establish clear leadership of the renewable energy sector in Scotland. That has been a focus for Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Government’s own energy policy.
You will have seen the Audit Scotland report on renewable energy that came out two weeks ago. You are projecting a bounce-back in 2014-15 to spending £130 million. Is it realistic to expect that uplift in funding within that timescale?
We are moving into a position in which we have more clarity. Let us take the factors that I have just set out to Mr MacKenzie, which are the investment climate in general—the economic confidence—electricity market reform and wider technological development. On all three of those factors, the marketplace is becoming stronger. Economic conditions are improving, electricity market reform is getting more securely founded and technology developments are continuing apace.
I want to focus on a couple of areas. The first is getting more young people into work. We touched briefly on the modern apprenticeship scheme, which is a route into employment for a lot of Scotland’s young people, and we recently had the make young people your business initiative. When are we likely to get an indication of the initiative’s success in increasing the number of young people who are offered a job?
Youth employment statistics are very susceptible to variation during the calendar year. There is a significant spike immediately after the conclusion of the school year, which works its way through. The guidance makes it crystal clear that comparisons of youth employment data should never be made quarter by quarter and that there should be an annual like-for-like assessment of a given moment in a financial year.
I welcome the positive trend in youth employment in Scotland.
There are two things that the Government can do. First, we can lead by example. We are determined to do that where we can in the public sector. Ministers carry responsibility for large parts of the public sector, where we can meet our commitment to the living wage; in other parts of the public sector, we do not have operational control and cannot do that.
In the workshop in Irvine in which I was involved, we explored support for Scottish businesses that want to grow. It has been suggested that Scottish businesses are quite good at being acquired but not as good at making acquisitions. Is there work that the Scottish Government can do to support businesses that want to expand in that way?
My worry is not that Scottish companies are unable to grow by acquisition—we have some good examples of Scottish companies that have grown in that way—but that Scottish companies that could grow and provide a greater contribution to the Scottish economy by anchoring their development here are acquired at a point when, if investment capital in the Scottish economy was more available, they could perhaps have developed and grown without acquisition. That is the bit that worries me.
Is that something that—
My apologies to Mr McDonald, but I should have completed that answer.
When we took evidence from Entrepreneurial Exchange, we heard that companies often do not have the seamless transition that they require between angel investment and venture capital. Is that something that the Government can assist with, or is that beyond the limit of what you can do?
We can assist with an element of that by ensuring that there is a complete profile of potential investment channels available within the marketplace in Scotland. That is something that we can do, and that is what our discussions are focused on doing.
I have a question on that issue. Funding is of course important and, as you rightly say, the growth and involvement of angel investment has been very substantial. Speaking from personal experience, I think that, although funding might be available, there is a lack of good business support—aside from what the major agencies do for high-growth companies—for issues such as knowledge transfer from university research and development. Are any conversations taking place on how we can help businesses to achieve the transformation that you have talked about?
It is important that we consider what progress has been made within the economy. We have lots of companies that grow and develop and get access to support from our enterprise agencies. In my travels around the country, I encounter more and more companies that are account managed by Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise that say to me that they feel well assisted in their growth journey—
I agree with you on that, but I am asking about the companies outwith that.
That comes back to my earlier response about the need to have the correct connections between business gateway, which should be looking at Scotland’s entire company base, and Scottish Enterprise, which also has an obligation on the issue.
I will close with two questions that arise from the evidence that we took on Monday from Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and VisitScotland. The first question is on the strategic forum. Are we on target to meet the strategic forum savings for the current year of £25 million?
We will certainly have to live within those constraints, so my answer is yes.
That is a slightly qualified answer, but that is fine. Next year the savings are £40 million, and the year after that they are £40 million. We have identified that Scottish Enterprise, HIE, VisitScotland and SDS are finding £26 million in savings between them. Can we assume that it is therefore the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council that is finding the extra £14 million in savings?
It will come from the funding council and Skills Development Scotland.
SDS was in the group that was making the £26 million in savings that I quoted. I think that SDS said that it was expecting to find £1 million in savings.
Sorry—in which financial year?
For next year.
For 2014-15. The numbers that I have are slightly—not substantially—adrift from that. The five participants are Scottish Enterprise, HIE, VisitScotland, the Scottish funding council and SDS.
And that adds up to £40 million?
Yes.
I will be keeping a close eye on that one.
In selling any asset, Scottish Enterprise will be obliged to satisfy itself that it can secure the appropriate market value for that asset. If it is not securing that market value price, it should not be selling the asset in question. Those are the rules that are in place.
I understand that, but I am sure that you will understand, cabinet secretary, that if we are talking about sales of commercial property holdings, for example, now is not a good time to dispose of them because the market is very low. Perhaps if Scottish Enterprise held on to those holdings for two, three, four or five years, the market might improve. It is similar to when a former UK Government sold the gold reserves at an all-time low gold price and perhaps did not get the best value for money for the taxpayer.
I completely accept your point about the gold price. I think that a judgment has to be made about individual sales of property, but the tests that I set out have to be applied in every single case. That is the requirement of the system.
So it does not concern you that Scottish Enterprise is selling capital assets to fund a shortfall in income.
We have to be careful how we view this. Part and parcel of the financing of Scottish Enterprise is that it will be using other sources of income beyond grant-in-aid. That is not something new; part of the character of Scottish Enterprise for more than 20 years has been that it generates income as a consequence of some of its other business activities. However, ultimately, when it comes to the issue of property disposals, Scottish Enterprise has to make a case-by-case judgment about whether the tests can be fulfilled in relation to property disposals.
I am sure that Scottish Enterprise can get market value, but the market is well down, as we know.
On that point, in South Ayrshire we have been trying to encourage the council to dispose of its assets because, if it does not sell them, it will have substantial on-going maintenance and energy costs—costs that horrified me as regards the liability that the council will incur. Therefore, we cannot just consider the market value. I hope that, working with the Scottish Futures Trust, the council will be able to achieve more than market value.
That would of course apply if we were dealing with an asset that is unlet and empty. If we are dealing with let properties, it is a completely different picture.
Cabinet secretary, do you remain encouraged by the level of investment that is coming into Scotland at the moment, especially in areas such as oil and gas?
I remain very encouraged and the Ernst & Young attractiveness index highlighted that we are at a 15-year high with regard to the number of projects. As Mr Robertson will be aware from his own constituency environment, the oil and gas sector in the north-east of Scotland is developing very significantly and it is expanding its reach into other parts of Scotland. Substantial oil and gas activity is now happening in other parts of the country because of the congestion in and around Aberdeen. Obviously, that spreads the economic benefit to other parts of the country.
As there are no further questions, we will call it a day. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation