Chamber and committees

Yes, compared with the current year, but it is a substantial reduction from where it was two years ago.

We have had quite enough data already this morning, convener.

Good morning to you, cabinet secretary, and your colleagues. You said at the outset that the economy was a top priority for the Government and that this was a budget to help grow the economy. In fact, I heard the First Minister on the radio this morning making the same point, so I will test that claim against some of the choices that were made in the budget.

The committee took evidence a few weeks ago from the enterprise agencies, which told us about the success that they have, the multiplier effect of money that is invested in the enterprise agencies and the impact that that has on economic growth, which was compelling evidence. Of course, all the enterprise agencies have experienced substantial budget cuts over the past decade. Scottish Enterprise, for example, had a budget of £350.9 million in the past financial year. For the budget that you have set, the figure is £236.10 million, which is a 33 per cent cut. Highlands and Islands Enterprise had a budget of £69.4 million last year. In the budget that you have set, it is £56.3 million, which is a 19 per cent cut. South of Scotland Enterprise had a budget of £31.2 million in the past year and, in the budget that you have set, it is £29.1 million.

Those are very substantial cuts on the past financial year in the budget. How does that budget support growing the economy if you are continuing baked-in cuts to the enterprise networks?

Congratulations to Ben Macpherson. We will now swap over.

The second agenda item is the choosing of the committee’s convener. The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible to be nominated as convener of this committee. I understand that Ben Macpherson is that party’s nominee for the role of convener. I therefore nominate Ben Macpherson.

Ben Macpherson was chosen as convener.

Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting in session 6 of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee.

I have the pleasure of convening the meeting for the first two items of business. By convention, the oldest member of the committee has to convene the opening of the first meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, I state on the record that I am not the oldest member of the committee—just in case there was any doubt about that.

We have received apologies from Richard Leonard MSP, who is the oldest member of the committee but cannot be with us this morning. That leaves me, as the second-oldest member, to convene the meeting. I take this opportunity to welcome members, and I look forward to working with you on the committee.

Agenda item 1 is declarations of interests, under which every member is required to declare any interests that are relevant to the work of the committee. Background information is provided in the declaration of interests paper, which has been circulated to members.

First of all, I will declare my interests. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising. I have no other relevant interests to declare.

I ask each member to declare their interests.

No—I am thinking about access to the public sector funds. In Scotland, we have things such as the Scottish National Investment Bank, which operates only in Scotland. Is there any difference in the way in which you can access funding on each side of the border?

You can touch on it now, if you want.

Good morning, minister and colleagues.

Thank you for setting out your view on the LCM in your opening statement. It is fair to say that the advice to the committee from the Scottish Parliament information centre is that this is an area in which lines between what is devolved and what is reserved are quite blurry, and it is quite difficult to distinguish between what might be a reserved competence and what might be a devolved competence. For example, regulations covering technical standards for products are reserved, but regulations relating to efficiency and effectiveness might not be, and it is perhaps difficult to distinguish between the two.

It would be helpful if you or your officials could give us some practical examples of areas in which a conflict might arise, if you are able to do so. That might better explain your hesitancy about granting consent.

Thank you for confirming the complexity of the issue, which is helpful in itself.

Can I ask about one more thing? You referred to EU alignment. With regard to regulation powers in this area, is there anything that the Scottish Government would do differently from the UK Government, or is it too early to make that prediction? I know that the Scottish Government’s general approach is to progress with EU alignment where possible, but would the Scottish Government seek to do that even if it meant taking an approach that was different from that of the UK Government?

You mentioned in passing the Prestwick spaceport, which was dropped, and we understand the reasons for that. What will happen to the funding that was allocated for that? Will it simply drop away? Are you seeking to redeploy it elsewhere? Can you explain that?