Finance, Constitution and Economy
Full Fiscal Autonomy
To ask the Scottish Government whether full fiscal autonomy remains its policy. (S4O-04364)
The Scottish Government will continue to make the case for full fiscal responsibility. However, as the implementation of the Calman commission proposals has demonstrated, the transition to full fiscal responsibility and the agreement of the detailed fiscal framework that would be required to underpin it would take a number of years to complete. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s immediate priority is to ensure that the Smith commission agreement is implemented in full, and that responsibility for employment policy, including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxation, national insurance and equality policy are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Those are the powers that this Parliament needs to improve competitiveness further, to create jobs and to lift people out of poverty.
Why has the Scottish Government renamed its policy “full fiscal responsibility”? By what date does it want to see the policy implemented?
The Government’s position is that the people of Scotland should be in control of their own affairs. That position, whatever we call it, has never changed; that is exactly our position.
As I have indicated, the Government supports full fiscal responsibility for Scotland. It would take time for that to be implemented, and it would require the consent of the United Kingdom Government. In the short term, what we will argue for—we will have more information on this tomorrow with the publication of the Scotland bill—depends on the extent to which the UK Government is prepared to implement the conclusions of the Smith commission. We will use the opportunity that was created by the meeting that the First Minister and I had with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland a couple of weeks ago to advance the arguments for further power beyond the Smith commission’s conclusions.
The cabinet secretary may be aware that House of Commons research published today shows that Scots benefited last year by almost £1,600 a head more in public spending than people in England, which clearly demonstrates the Barnett formula’s benefit to Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, were he to achieve full fiscal autonomy, or whatever he chooses to call it, that would mean the end of the Barnett formula for Scotland?
As Jackie Baillie will be aware, the financial arrangements that Scotland operates will change as a consequence of the Smith commission. If she has not worked that out, I suggest that she goes away and does some research, because the issues will change as a consequence of the fiscal framework that will be put in place arising out of the Smith commission; I thought that the Labour Party supported that. Perhaps there will be another change of position by the Labour Party on that question. It would not surprise me if that was the case.
Oh, for goodness’ sake! Try answering the question.
Order.
Jackie Baillie omitted from her question that full fiscal autonomy also comes with a range of economic powers and responsibilities to strengthen Scotland’s economic performance. We demonstrated just yesterday how we used the Scottish Parliament’s existing powers to improve Scotland’s economic competitiveness through the Scottish business pledge. We seek other ways of doing that through wider financial responsibility, which, of course, would come with full fiscal responsibility.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that we should pursue fiscal responsibility with purpose, coupled with a comprehensive economic strategy that would include the public, private and third sectors working in partnership to develop and implement a range of transformational policies, which will deliver an export-based increase in growth and address inequality by increasing economic participation to that of the top five advanced economies?
Who wrote that question?
Order, please.
Mr Gibson has certainly done Jackie Baillie a public service by explaining some of the opportunities that arise out of exercising those wider economic powers to strengthen Scotland’s economic performance.
Mr Gibson has set out an illustration of some of the additional powers that would become available to the Scottish Parliament if we had greater financial responsibility. Of course, we will use every lever at our disposal to strengthen our country’s economic performance within the existing settlement, but if we acquire further powers, which is the basis of the discussions that I will have with the UK Government, we will have those opportunities to strengthen the Scottish economy into the bargain.
Office for Budget Responsibility (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the Office for Budget Responsibility. (S4O-04365)
Scottish Government officials are in regular dialogue with the Office for Budget Responsibility on a range of issues, including the production of devolved tax forecasts, which the OBR publishes at each United Kingdom fiscal event.
In the OBR’s fiscal outlook of 2014, when considering Scotland’s new Calman taxes, it said that its forecasting methodologies were “work-in-progress”—that is, incomplete. In its fiscal outlook for 2015, it said on the methodologies that nothing had changed. On that basis, how confident is the Scottish Government that, in applying the remaining attributable portion of the Barnett contribution, we are not being, or will not be, short changed?
Mr Brodie’s question gets to the heart of the issue around block grant adjustment, which is an inherent part of the Calman commission proposals and will of course feature in the Smith commission proposals. As I explained to Parliament during the passage of the budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility arrived at a particular estimate of the effect of the devolution of stamp duty land tax and landfill tax to the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government arrived at a different estimate, which was of course verified independently by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. Those were different numbers, and they illustrate the gap, which is the danger that Mr Brodie has highlighted.
The Government agreed a conclusion to the discussions on the issue with the United Kingdom Government, and I shared and confirmed that with Parliament. Of course, that was a one-year settlement, and we will have to embark on the discussions for further arrangements in relation to the adjustment of the block grant to take into account the devolution of the taxes.
Constitutional Changes
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to meet the United Kingdom Government to discuss proposed constitutional changes. (S4O-04366)
On 15 May, the First Minister and I met the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the parliamentary under-secretary of state. At that meeting, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland made clear commitments that the forthcoming Scotland bill will implement the Smith commission in full. We will test that commitment when we see the Scotland bill tomorrow.
The Prime Minister also undertook to consider Scottish Government proposals for devolution beyond the measures in the Smith commission. We will put those proposals to the UK Government, and I will meet the secretary of state to discuss the next steps.
I welcome the declaration by the Scottish Government that it will defend the measures in the Human Rights Act 1998 and its principles. Will the Government now modify its position on prisoner voting, to adhere to the European Court of Human Rights rulings that it endorses?
The Scottish Government does not have legislative competence to change the position on prisoner voting. Once the Scotland bill delivers the Smith recommendations to transfer all powers to the Scottish Parliament in relation to elections to the Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland, it will be for this Parliament to consider all the relevant franchise issues. The Scottish Government has no proposals to amend the rules on prisoner voting.
Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the Smith agreement, supported by the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s critique of the UK Government’s draft clauses, provides the right basis for both devolving welfare benefits and retaining the benefits of the Barnett formula?
The Scottish Government supports the Smith commission proposals, which give some additional responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. As Mr Macdonald well knows, because he sat through the evidence that the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee heard, that committee’s conclusion was that the United Kingdom Government’s draft clauses do not translate the proposals from the Smith commission in full and with the necessary legislative effect.
It might have been helpful if Mr Macdonald and his colleagues had made that point before the election and not after it. I seem to remember them suggesting that the Government was somehow picking a fight where no fight needed to be picked on that question. However, I am glad that he has now arrived at a more sensible and considered position on the issue. We look forward to having Mr Macdonald’s support as we press the United Kingdom Government to devolve in full the responsibilities that were envisaged by the Smith commission agreement last November.
North Ayrshire (Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to boost the economy of North Ayrshire. (S4O-04367)
“Scotland’s Economic Strategy” reaffirms our commitment to increasing sustainable economic growth for all of Scotland, which is essential to achieving a more productive, cohesive and fairer country. Our continued investment in infrastructure, regeneration and business support is helping to boost North Ayrshire’s economy.
I thank the minister for that reply, although I would like to have heard more specifics. Will he tell members what impact Scottish Government actions to boost the North Ayrshire economy have had on employment and specifically on youth employment?
The work of private companies, supported by Scottish Enterprise, business gateway, the Scottish Government and local authorities, has had a salutary effect. I can inform the member that, just in the past year, the employment rate—the number of people in work—has increased by 10 per cent to 70 per cent.
Those are statistics, but a 10 per cent increase in the number of people in jobs in Kenneth Gibson’s part of Scotland shows that we are managing to achieve success. There is much more work to do, however, and we will work with Mr Gibson, who strongly advocates economic success for his part of Scotland.
Question 5, in the name of Joan McAlpine, has not been lodged, for understandable reasons.
Interconnectors to Islands (Socioeconomic Benefits)
To ask the Scottish Government what socioeconomic benefits would arise from providing interconnectors to the islands. (S4O-04369)
There would be huge benefits. First, interconnectors would be able to meet up to 5 per cent of Great Britain’s electricity demand by 2030. Secondly, the development of the projects and the associated infrastructure would bring jobs and investment to the regions. Viking Energy has estimated, for example, that the direct annual income to Shetland associated with its project would be £30.8 million.
I have written to the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, to highlight the strategic importance of that workstream for Scotland and of her department’s continued participation in the Scottish island renewables delivery forum.
Does the minister agree that, in addition to the socioeconomic benefits, the significant renewable energy generation capacity in Scotland’s islands can help to keep the United Kingdom’s lights on and help the UK to meet its climate change targets? Does he agree that the supply chain will produce significant numbers of well-paid jobs and careers, not only in our islands but throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK?
That is not an overstatement. To put it differently, without continued expansion of the renewable energy output in Scotland, the UK will have great difficulty in meeting its climate change targets. In fact, some might argue that it would be impossible for the UK to do so.
We need a balanced mix of electricity generation and supply, but we believe that harnessing the islands’ potential in renewables is essential. Generally speaking, the islands are the best place for wind energy, as well as being the home of marine energy—wave and tidal power.
All in all, I am hopeful that the constructive work that took place with the previous Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Davey, will continue with Amber Rudd. We are totally committed to working in a constructive fashion to deliver a solution that will release our islands’ enormous potential.
I thank the minister for his comments and for contacting Amber Rudd, particularly in relation to the forum’s continuing work. Can he update Parliament on where discussions are at with the UK Government and the European Union about an interconnector, reflecting the research and development nature of the work that is being carried out by the European Marine Energy Centre, which is in my constituency?
I cannot and should not speak for the UK Government, but I can say that, before the general election, there was a reasonable modus operandi. As far as I am aware, the island renewables delivery forum was the only subject-related working group to involve the Scottish and UK Governments. Getting round a table with Ed Davey, his officials, our officials and others was a useful and constructive way to do business.
I have therefore suggested to Amber Rudd that that modus operandi should continue. We pursue the issues in a non-partisan way—as Mr McArthur is aware—because of the enormous prize for the people whom he represents and for those who are represented by Tavish Scott and Dr Allan in the northern isles and the Western Isles.
I believe that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking in a letter to Councillor Angus Campbell that the islands’ potential would be delivered, so we look forward to the implementation of that prime ministerial pledge.
“Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin”
To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to publish the next “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin”. (S4O-04370)
In collaboration with stakeholders in the industry, we are analysing the fiscal changes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the budget and assessing what impact the reforms will have on future investment and production—and, in turn, on tax revenues. When that analysis is complete, we will publish an updated “Oil and Gas Analytical Bulletin”.
The analytical bulletins were described as being part of a series and were previously published every few months. Why has a bulletin not been published for more than a year?
For the simple reason that was in the answer that I just gave Mr Brown: there have been significant changes in the tax arrangements for the North Sea, and the Government is considering them in consultation with stakeholders to determine their effect. I would be the first to accept that the chancellor made significant changes in the March budget and it will take time to assess their effect, given their significance and what we hope will be their beneficial effect on the North Sea regime, which we will discuss with stakeholders. As I said, when the material is complete, we will publish an updated bulletin.
I think that many companies in the oil industry have already assessed the impact of the changes that were made in the budget. However, it is a year since we had the last oil and gas bulletin and it is two months since the budget. Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister has made her own commitment to publish the bulletin, so when will we see the revised bulletin?
The updated bulletin will be published when the Government has completed the analytical work that we are undertaking. I made the point to Mr Brown that we have to acknowledge the significance of the changes that the UK Government made. Jackie Baillie says that companies have analysed the impact of the changes; many companies that we are talking to are considering their investment plans as a consequence of the changes to the regime. We need to undertake that analytical work properly to ensure that we can provide Parliament with a clear and substantiated analysis, which will be published when the work is complete.
East Lothian (Tourism)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support East Lothian Council’s efforts to promote the area as a tourist destination. (S4O-04371)
The Scottish Government supports all areas in working to achieve the industry-led ambition for Scotland to be a first-choice tourism destination. East Lothian’s stunning assets are extensively marketed and supported by VisitScotland in a variety of ways, which include featuring in the brilliant moments marketing campaign and financial support for events such as the Scottish open.
I thank the minister for that response. One of the countless compelling reasons for visiting East Lothian is John Muir’s birthplace in Dunbar, as well as the John Muir way, which the former First Minister opened not long ago.
Last week, I hosted in Parliament a delegation from the John Muir Association of Martinez, California, which was John Muir’s home in America. The association is keen to seek opportunities to publicise the John Muir way in the United States and to work with the national parks administration there to increase tourism between Muir-related sites in Scotland and America. Can the Scottish Government provide any support for such a project?
Iain Gray is right to promote the attractions of John Muir and his links to Scotland. He is the founder of national parks in the world, including Yosemite in the USA. John Muir’s history and achievements were celebrated last year, as Mr Gray mentioned, and activities were supported by the Scottish Government, which worked in partnership with East Lothian Council and others. We are happy to consider how best to continue that work and I undertake to write to VisitScotland to raise Mr Gray’s point and to revert to him after I have done so.
Local Government Taxation System
To ask the Scottish Government what planning and modelling it has carried out regarding the future of the taxation system for local government. (S4O-04372)
The Scottish Government, jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, has established the commission on local tax reform to identify and examine fairer systems of local taxation as alternatives to the council tax. That work is due to report in the autumn, and I note that the commission has recently issued and promoted a call for evidence.
Council tax has been frozen in Scotland for eight years in a row. A Fife Council consultation found that 71 per cent of residents would support a halt in the council tax freeze in order that extra money raised could be spent on vital local services. However, support for that increase falls to 36 per cent if the Scottish Government were to impose a £4.6 million penalty on Fife Council for doing so. Will the Scottish Government consider removing the penalty if Fife Council decides to increase council tax this year?
To be honest, I think that Jayne Baxter answered her own question. Her question contained the fact that the Scottish Government essentially compensates local authorities for not increasing the council tax. We provide local authorities with £70 million across the country to enable them to freeze the council tax. That sum was set at 3 per cent of the collectable amount back in 2007. Of course, inflation has varied from year to year and is now significantly below the 3 per cent that we provide local authorities with as compensation in respect of their agreement not to increase the council tax. The proper financial support has been given to local authorities to support the freeze in the council tax.
Jayne Baxter must also remember that members of the public who pay the council tax have benefited from having at least one bill that has not gone up at a time of extreme pressure on household finances, particularly for public sector workers who have had their pay constrained, inevitably, by the financial pressures with which we have wrestled.
The council tax freeze is properly funded by Government and is a contribution to the ability of hard-pressed families across the country to manage their household budgets.
Devolution (Further Powers)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its proposals for a widening of the powers suggested by the Smith commission. (S4O-04373)
At our meeting on 15 May, the Prime Minister undertook to consider Scottish Government proposals for devolution beyond the Smith commission powers. We will put those proposals to the United Kingdom Government and I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the next steps.
With regard to the implementation of new tax-raising powers, has consideration been given to the need to vary the Barnett formula on a timescale that is agreed between the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government rather than in the arbitrary manner that has been proposed by some unionist politicians?
It is an explicit recommendation of the Smith commission that a fiscal framework has to be put in place to deal with the financial implications of the changes to our powers that are envisaged by the Smith commission proposals. That fiscal framework is now the subject of discussion between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I have made it clear to the UK Government that a legislative consent memorandum on the Scotland bill cannot be considered until such time as we have a clearly acceptable fiscal framework and, for that to be possible, agreement must be reached that the fiscal framework is in the interests of Scotland and the UK. That is what I will be pursuing as I take forward the interests of the Parliament and Scotland in the negotiation process.
Devolution (Further Powers)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has a timescale for the procurement of evidence and engagement in civic consultation in relation to the further powers it is seeking in addition to the Smith commission proposals. (S4O-04374)
The Scottish Government will set out proposals for devolution beyond the Smith commission powers to the United Kingdom Government and I will meet the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the next steps. The Scottish Government is clear that the process that follows and any timetable for action should allow for full engagement with the people of Scotland.
On 14 May, when I asked the cabinet secretary about this issue in the chamber, he replied that seeking evidence and engaging in consultation
“would be advantageous and beneficial.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2015; c 3.]
What kind of timescale or structure does he have in mind?
During the Smith commission process, an extensive amount of information was supplied by members of the public and a variety of stakeholders from across Scotland. The Smith commission did its level best to consider all the issues raised but, clearly, it was not possible to do full justice to all that material in the limited time that was available to us. However, the Scottish Government has been considering that material since last November, and we have had various discussions with interested parties. The election debate also discussed a number of those questions.
We have a broad cross-section of opinion that will enable us to inform the further proposals that we will make to the UK Government, but I accept the necessity for further consultation once the proposals are to hand. That is exactly what the Scottish Government will do in light of our discussions with the UK Government.
Scottish Futures Trust (Debt)
To ask the Scottish Government what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy’s position is on reclassifying Scottish Futures Trust debt as public borrowing and how much he expects the total to be. (S4O-04375)
The Scottish Futures Trust does not hold any public sector borrowing that is at risk of reclassification. Borrowing associated with the non-profit-distributing programme is contained in the special purpose vehicles that have been set up for individual NPD and hub projects. As I have previously advised Parliament, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust are working to resolve the current classification issue without the need to call on any contingency arrangements.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply but hope that he recognises the worry that all members of Parliament and people in Scotland will feel about the potential ramifications of reclassifying substantial sums of debts that run into the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds. Does he believe that the additional borrowing will come out of the borrowing powers that are coming the Scottish Parliament’s way, is he asking the Treasury for additional borrowing powers, or does he believe that the Treasury should absorb or write off all the debt?
In the last part of my answer, I said that the Government and the Scottish Futures Trust are working to resolve the current classification issue without the need to call on any contingency arrangements. That is without a doubt my preferred position and I am working to secure it.
I acknowledge the parliamentary interest in the question, which is why I reported in full to the Parliament when I had sufficient information to be able to give a comprehensive explanation of the issue with which we are wrestling. The matters are still being discussed by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Futures Trust and the Office for National Statistics and I expect that it will be some time before that process concludes. I have made some contingency arrangements with HM Treasury for the handling of any potential implications—I stress the word “potential” because I am trying to avoid any implications whatsoever—for the last financial year, 2014-15.
We expect to see the issue resolved so that we can properly take steps to resolve any outstanding questions for the current financial year. I stress that the Government is working with all its energy to resolve the issue without the need to call on any contingency arrangements.
The Scottish Futures Trust helpfully provided the Scottish Parliament information centre with a list of the eight capital projects that have been delayed as a result of the reclassification of debt, but I have heard that more projects, such as Our Lady and St Patrick’s high school, have been delayed. How many more capital projects have been delayed? Will the Scottish Futures Trust cover the cost of delays beyond those of the original eight?
We must be careful about terminology here. Eight hub projects—six schools and two healthcare projects—have been affected. Projects in the pipeline will be affected by the discussions that we are having with the ONS. We are endeavouring with all our energy to resolve those discussions as timeously as possible. When I am in a position to provide Parliament with further information, I will report accordingly.
Devolution (Tax-raising Powers)
To ask the Scottish Government what issues it needs to address in light of the devolution of additional tax-raising powers. (S4O-04376)
As I indicated earlier, negotiation of Scotland’s updated fiscal framework is one of my highest priorities for the months ahead. I will continue to make it clear to the United Kingdom Government that an acceptable fiscal framework is essential to allow the Scottish Government to recommend that the Parliament consents to the new Scotland bill. The Devolution (Further Powers) Committee’s interim report highlighted the need for greater clarity on key components of important issues in relation to the need for shared information to support negotiations. I look forward to working constructively with the new UK Government to make rapid progress on those issues.
Does the cabinet secretary have any concerns about the fact that the Auditor General for Scotland lacks statutory involvement in the audit process in relation to dealing with HM Revenue and Customs and the reporting process?
We covered some of that ground at the Public Audit Committee meeting this morning when we looked at some of the reporting and scrutiny arrangements. Where there is to be some form of shared institutional basis for acting that will affect the Scottish Government’s spending power, it is important that there are arrangements to exercise appropriate scrutiny of all those questions. Some of the questions are not for me, but for the Auditor General and others to resolve, to ensure that they are satisfied that the proper and full audit arrangements can be put in place to fulfil the necessary reporting requirements and standards of the Parliament.
Edinburgh and South-east of Scotland (Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with stakeholders regarding boosting the economy of Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland. (S4O-04377)
Ministers meet stakeholders regularly, across a range of portfolio interests, to discuss boosting the economy of Scotland.
I will ask specifically about the city deal for the south-east of Scotland. My understanding is that there are key issues in relation to housing, skills and investment in infrastructure that the local authorities are pursuing under the leadership of the City of Edinburgh Council. What support does the Scottish Government offer that process? Does the minister acknowledge the project’s importance, given that the Glasgow city deal expects to generate 15,000 construction jobs, with the prospect of 28,000 permanent jobs once construction is completed?
Can I hurry you along, please?
What key offers is the Scottish Government making to its partners as it pulls together the city deal?
The six leaders of the Edinburgh and the south-east of Scotland city region wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities on 1 April, outlining plans to develop an ambitious city deal for the region. The cabinet secretary responded positively on 22 April, welcoming the approach. Preliminary discussions with Scottish Government and Scottish Futures Trust officials have taken place. The Scottish Government adopts a very positive approach to these matters, which are not being handled by me. They could unleash huge benefits for Edinburgh and the environment.
It is reasonable to say that, as Sarah Boyack knows, there has been massive investment in those areas, including the Forth replacement crossing, the Edinburgh to Glasgow rail improvement programme, the Royal hospital for sick children, NHS Lothian’s redevelopment of the Royal Edinburgh hospital campus, the national centre for the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and three schools. There has been massive investment in Edinburgh—quite rightly so—and that will continue. We take a positive approach to those matters.
West of Scotland (Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to assist the economy in the west of Scotland. (S4O-04378)
The Scottish Government has been doing many actions in economic developments, including supporting businesses, helping young people, investing in infrastructure and working with others. However, we always want to see what more we can do.
The minister will be aware of recent announcements from DBApparel and Manpower in Inverclyde, which are proposing to transfer some jobs overseas, and RBS and Poundstretcher, which are proposing to close some of their operations in Inverclyde. What can the Scottish Government do to try to stop companies moving jobs overseas and to secure more investment into Inverclyde? Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet me and the new Inverclyde MP to discuss those matters?
I am happy to meet both members. We use every practical lever to persuade companies not to relocate jobs from Scotland, if we have the opportunity so to do. I am aware of the recent announcements that Mr McMillan has brought to our attention and which we know about from the enterprise network; they have obviously caused a great deal of hardship to the people whose jobs are affected. However, we are delivering the most competitive business tax regime, with 1,001 business premises in Inverclyde paying zero or reduced rates.
Just this morning, I was delighted to hear Mark Harvey of Ernst & Young saying that Scotland has, for the third successive year, been the most successful part of the United Kingdom outwith London in securing inward investment with 80 projects, with the number of manufacturing projects increasing from 15 to 31 and with more scientific research projects than at any time in the past decade. I cannot name them all, because time does not permit, but I know that one of those projects is Concentrix in Gourock, with 500 jobs, and there are many others. Although there are challenges and problems, there are also opportunities and we are grabbing them with both hands.
Levenmouth (Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the economy of Levenmouth in Fife. (S4O-04379)
The Scottish Government is committed to boosting economic growth and tackling inequality in Scotland. Across Levenmouth, we continue to support economic growth with investments in infrastructure, regeneration and business support.
As the cabinet secretary knows, the closure of Tullis Russell Papermakers, the recent closures on Leven High Street and the uncertainties surrounding Burntisland Fabrications are creating significant challenges for the Levenmouth economy. This afternoon, the Levenmouth rail campaign is holding a conference to put together a business case for the infrastructure. Does the cabinet secretary share my view that supporting the Levenmouth economy is not just about the reactive measures that have happened recently but also about investment in future growth? Will he work with the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities to see whether we can achieve improved transport links for the area to support the economy in future?
I agree with Claire Baker’s points. It is for those reasons that we set up the task force, which, together with Fife Council, looks at the wider range of economic issues that are facing the Fife economy. Claire Baker has quite rightly talked about the issues around Tullis Russell, Sphere & Turret and BiFab in the central Fife area, but there are other issues in Longannet and west Fife and other questions with which we are wrestling. We will certainly look positively on proposals that come forward. I have been pleased with the progress that we have made with the task force, as is the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, who is here, and I have already discussed a number of infrastructure projects that may be of significance in the Fife economy and we will be happy to engage on those questions.
North East Scotland (Economy)
To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to ensure that North East Scotland has a diverse economy. (S4O-04380)
We use all available levers to create the economic conditions to enable the economy of the north-east to thrive. Working closely with a wide range of partners, including the enterprise agencies, Skills Development Scotland and local councils, we work to ensure that businesses of all sizes and sectors can access the support that they need to grow.
I was thinking particularly of the traditional sectors such as the fishing and food industries. With the skipper expo in Aberdeen this week, does the minister agree that attracting the next generation of skippers to the fishing industry is important to our diversity and that every opportunity to support their training and development should be taken?
Yes, of course I do. Fishing is part of Scotland’s traditions and cultures, and nowhere more so than in the north-east of Scotland. We are determined to continue to work with the fishing industry to restore the identity and status of fishing as an occupation of choice for young people in our coastal communities.
Wave Energy Scotland (Location)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Highlands and Islands Enterprise regarding whether Wave Energy Scotland should be located in Orkney. (S4O-04381)
The Scottish Government has tasked Highlands and Islands Enterprise with establishing and operating Wave Energy Scotland. The location of Wave Energy Scotland is therefore a matter for HIE.
The minister will be aware of the investment initiatives and activities that are taking place in France, Sweden, Australia, Ireland and elsewhere. Although WES has the potential to be part of a United Kingdom response to drive the industry through the difficulties that it has experienced, that will clearly not be enough. Can the minister advise us what other initiatives are under consideration and will he agree to meet me, Councillor James Stockan and other local stakeholders when he is in Orkney next week, to discuss how the islands that I represent can remain at the forefront of what is happening in the wave energy sector?
Please be brief, minister.
I am happy to meet Liam McArthur. I am not quite sure where, but I will be in his constituency at the convention next week and if there is an opportunity to meet him there I will certainly do that. I think that we have a shared objective on all these matters.