Chamber and committees

Good morning, everybody, and thank you for attending—[Interruption.] I hope that you can hear me now—can you?

I want to kick off the session with a bit of framing out, because the feedback that you have provided to the call for evidence is very content rich. First, at a summary level, what do you see as being the expected benefits of the presumption of mainstreaming? I ask that question because anticipated benefits were identified when the policy was put in place, and we now have a lot of data to draw on. That is my first question, which is an open, framing question.

Secondly, what do you see as being the main impacts of implementation of the policy on children with complex needs? I suspect that we will want to get into a lot of detail, so you can keep your answers at a summary level. What do you see as being the expected benefits, and what have the impacts been of implementation of the policy? I invite everyone on the panel to respond.

My last question concerns affordable housing, which I brought up before. I picked up on something in the wording of the Government’s response. In the light of the commentary made about capex—I strongly agree with that commentary, because it is a significant challenge—and FTs, the response says:

“We remain focused on delivering 110,000 affordable homes”.

Previously, the wording that was used was that “we remain committed” to delivering 110,000 affordable homes. Is that change an indicator of anything—given the significant challenges around capex and FTs that we discussed earlier?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for joining us.

Before I move on to my more substantive questions, I want to raise a couple of wee quick points, the first of which is about capital expenditure. Given the significant cuts that we face—it is anticipated that capital expenditure could be cut by 20 per cent, in real terms, by 2028-29—will you consider scheduling a debate on the issue? Ironically, people outside the Parliament have, for the first time, become alive to the implications of the capex cut, because of what it means for treatment centres. As you know, the subject is of great interest to me and one that I have consistently asked about. Will you consider scheduling such a debate? I think that it would be valuable.

If one had to put a wee bet on it, the evidence suggests that the constrained environment for public services will continue. To me, that suggests that there is a greater need to do something like that, because it is about fiscal sustainability.

My next question is on social security spend, which is another area where there are concerns about long-term affordability and sustainability. Ironically enough, having raised the point about the longer-term picture, I saw when I read through the response that it deliberately referenced

“monitoring all areas of expenditure during the year”.

That is exactly not what the point is; the point is that, when we extrapolate the numbers, we see that it is not sustainable, particularly given that it is a demand-led area. Therefore, regardless of whether the approach is responsible and capable, the point is that you are looking at expenditure only in-year. As a result, I was surprised by that response.

This ties in with earlier comments about the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s report on sustainability, but do you recognise the very real concern that, when we ask about the long term, your answer that you will take a responsible approach in-year does not provide confidence? That is the issue. Arguably, we have been taking a responsible approach in-year, every single year, but that is not the issue—the issue is the projection that has concerned the committee so much.

Exactly. Having such a discussion and fleshing out the position of all the political parties could be helpful.

My next question comes on the back of the convener’s comments about single-year versus multiyear funding and what the Scottish Fiscal Commission had to say about that in its fiscal sustainability report. Does the Scottish Government collect any statistics on the sunk costs of doing all the monitoring and assessment on a year-by-year basis? It strikes me that that is not only inefficient but extremely expensive. Do you collect any stats on that? In effect, it is money lost.

Thank you.

It strikes me that it would be helpful to look at that in a quantitative as well as a qualitative way, because it exemplifies the inefficiency that plays into some of our other costs.

I have previously asked about the ScotWind funding. To be honest, I was a wee bit disappointed when I read the Scottish Government’s response to the relevant part of our report. It said:

“Consideration will be given to how future revenues will be deployed.”

The point that I was trying to make was that I do not want consideration to be given to how future revenues will be deployed. First, I want there to be recognition of the importance of setting up a sovereign wealth fund. Secondly, I want consideration to be given to costs, implications and process. Thirdly, I want a specific commitment to be made that fiscal rules will be set.

Although I accept that you cannot bind your successors, I would like to hear a commitment that, this session, you will set aside, say, 5 per cent of all moneys. That would recognise the revenue challenges that you face today and also look to the longer term to provide the building blocks for fiscal sustainability. Will you comment on the response that I highlighted, as it strikes me that it misses the point altogether?

I absolutely agree and I, too, will reflect on that in my speech.

Another barrier that I have previously highlighted is around enabling the site to be modified to become a biorefinery and to produce the likes of sustainable aviation fuel. I note that Graham Simpson pressed Graham Stuart hard on that at a previous visit to the Economy and Fair Work Committee. I agree with Mr Simpson that it cannot be right that none of the eight potential sites that have been considered thus far is in Scotland. Any measures will require a pause before starting the work to convert the refinery to an import facility. I call on Petroineos to extend its timescales to allow us all to reach a positive outcome. Petroineos has a moral duty to Grangemouth and the vital cluster that surrounds it.

I know that the Scottish Government and its partner agencies are undertaking considerable work. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, by mapping current supply chains not only do we get a proper impact assessment for today, but we gain a deeper understanding of what economic policy measures can be taken for tomorrow. Proactively enabling supply chains is a fundamental part of enabling a just transition.

Skills are also an important part of developing our target operating model and, although I realise that skills belong in another brief, maybe the minister could give more information on work that is under way in both those areas.

Finally, when I was on the Economy and Fair Work Committee we raised questions about the purpose, governance and membership of the Grangemouth future industry board. I am interested in hearing more from the minister on how she sees that vital body developing.

Grangemouth is absolutely fundamental, so I want to put on the record my disappointment about the about-turn by the potential next Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, in the latest announcement about dropping the £28 billion energy fund, which had included vital promises for Scotland. Those promises included £1 billion to modernise Grangemouth and the suggestion that there could be around 50,000 clean power jobs. Obviously, that will have an immediate impact, but the vital mood music suggesting that the UK is serious about attracting global investment is severely lacking.

To that end, I encourage a clear proposition from the Scottish Government about our ambitions. I am sure that the minister will have reflections on that.