Chamber and committees

Okay, but you do not think that the fundamental power dynamic will change. The two organisations—the NHS and local authorities—will continue to put money into the pot to fund the social care outcome.

What is the total?

I find that broader illustration useful. I am trying to explore the interaction between how money is spent and raised at local and national levels and the point at which there is an instruction on that, rather than saying that that is the only function.

Perhaps you could explain to me a bit about co-design, which you mentioned. I find it a little difficult to believe that a group of care users—people who rely on care services and the great work that our carers do through local authorities and others—came together in a room and said, “What we need in order to make our lives better is a fairly cosmetic tweak to the IJB and a board that might advise ministers as to when they might want to use the powers that they already have.” Was that the tone of the conversation? Those people have the lived experience that you have mentioned. Surely they were saying, “I need more frequent care visits, and I need somebody who will be able to stay longer.” I recognise that you are setting out the framework, but drawing the line between the money that we are spending and those outcomes seems to me to be pretty tenuous at best.

In England, an invitation to make applications was published on 2 October 2022, which included guidance for the expression of interest, and those investment zones were announced in the budget on 15 March 2023. In Scotland, there was no bidding or invitation process at all. Neil Gray answered a written question from me in July last year, saying that

“The invitation to host an Investment Zone was not subject to a bidding or application process”.—[Written Answers, 20 July 2023; S6W-19604.]

Again, why the divergence?

You stress the issue of transparency, but I am disappointed that you think it is acceptable for the process not to be published ahead of time. Let me draw you into the speculation around this in a lot of the coverage at the time. The investment zones were allocated in Glasgow, where the SNP is defending seats in the general election, and in Aberdeenshire, where the Conservatives are defending seats in the general election. Do you understand that, in the absence of published criteria and a process ahead of time, you open up both parties—the Conservatives and the SNP—to accusations of the kind that I am making?

I am sorry to interrupt, but, on that point, you said that local authorities did not want a competitive process.

Do you not think that it was not even suboptimal but really unacceptable that the selection criteria and process were published only retrospectively—seven weeks after the decision was announced? Again, that is in stark contrast to what happened in the English process.

Do you understand my frustration? You mentioned the case of Dundee. Although I am a native Dundonian, I represent the whole of North East Scotland and I am very welcoming of investment in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen. However, in Dundee we have particular economic need, which you have set out. We also have the finest life sciences university in the UK, which has been top of the research excellence framework for the past 14 years. It is absolutely outstanding and well ahead of any other institutions in Scotland and parts of the rest of the UK.

There is consternation at the absence of published criteria, and there is real local anger. If you had seen the press clippings at that time, secretary of state, you would have understood that. The local paper, The Courier, was in uproar at the fact that we had not received a green freeport or an investment zone. Do you want to see from now on, in these joint enterprises between yourselves and the Scottish Government, bidding criteria set out ahead of time so that local authorities can build the right criteria, make the right case and make the argument that I have just made for the particular need of a geography?

I have to say that I remain sceptical about the process, Mr Gove. On 14 September, Neil Gray told the Scottish Parliament that the selection process and the decision on the investments had been agreed on the same date, 22 June.

If I might test the convener’s indulgence, I will close my questioning with a question on spending. We are talking about allocations, but are there not real challenges in getting the money spent by local authorities? Do we not risk replicating the situation with the city deal process, for which applications went in more than a decade ago? Many of those projects across Scotland have not materialised, because that money has not actually been spent in communities. Are you concerned about spend versus allocation?

Good morning, secretary of state. You have set out some detail of the application processes and assessment criteria for the levelling up fund, the community ownership fund and the long-term plan for towns, which is welcome. Why did the process for investment zones in Scotland diverge so significantly from the process in all those other areas?