Chamber and committees

Thank you. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for attending this morning.

So it removes the ability to publish either of the figures.

You might be aware that, last week, people from the retail, hospitality and leisure industries were in front of the committee. One area for which the Scottish Government has responsibility is business rates. Although the representatives of those industries raised concerns about other factors for which the Scottish Government does not have responsibility, such as energy costs, they were pretty robust in their criticism of the Scottish Government in relation to the consequentials that came to us because of the 75 per cent discount on business rates from the UK Government. Barnett consequentials totalling £260 million came to the Scottish Government, but over those two years, it has not introduced a similar or equivalent scheme. My understanding is that Wales has, although its scheme is not as generous as that in the UK, but it has used some of the money to do that.

You might have heard the criticisms last week about a lack of engagement from the Government and the lack of discussion about how those consequentials could be targeted at that sector. Although you are right that there is increased productivity and activity in some areas, the pressure on that sector is eating into profits. Although it is seen as a busy sector that is recovering from the pandemic, it is difficult for it to invest in its businesses and in skills because of the extreme margins in which it operates.

I do not know whether you want to respond to the comments that were made last week about business rates and why the Government is not looking at some kind of business relief for that sector that would bring it in line with those in the rest of the UK.

I accept that, but it is £260 million. In the scheme of things, that is not going to solve the challenges that the NHS faces. I am not arguing that we should replicate the UK scheme, but we should give some kind of relief to the sector. As I said, Wales has gone for a different model. The Fraser of Allander Institute has said that £260 million is not enough to cover an equivalent scheme, but there seems to have been a lack of discussion or consideration about what can be done to provide some relief to the sector.

There was previously a £50 million commitment. Is it anticipated that the £1.5 million for this year will increase in future years? It would take us almost 20 years to get to £50 million if we were to go at the rate of £1.5 million a year. Is the £50 million commitment still there?

Will that be shared with the committee? You have given a rough idea of how the £1.5 million is to be spent, but we might have questions about geographical spread, which the committee is interested in. Will we get a more detailed picture of how the money will be invested?

I have been generous with members’ time so far, but, in order to get through business, I ask them to be as concise as possible. If the cabinet secretary could consider making his answers a bit shorter, that would be helpful.

The minister referred to correspondence that we have had from the rural affairs secretary, who has raised concerns that there would be potential competition from producers in countries with lower animal welfare standards. Can the minister speak to that this morning? I appreciate that it was the rural affairs secretary who contacted us about that issue, but if the Scottish Government is going to monitor the impact of the agreement on Scottish producers, is that still an area of concern?

I have a technical question about the LCM. The Scottish Government says that the amendments

“do amount to material divergence from EU law, however they are very minor”,

and it recommends giving consent to the bill. One of the regulations involves the way in which a contract is advertised. Currently, there is an option to include the value of the successful tender, or the values of the highest and lowest tenders. To comply with the terms of CPTPP membership, the option to include the highest and lowest tenders instead of the actual contract value will be removed. Does that have any impact, or is there any significance to that change?

Our next item of business is an evidence session on the Scottish Government’s 2024-25 budget, which was published on 19 December 2023. The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s chamber debate on the budget will take place tomorrow.

I welcome Neil Gray, Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy. He is joined by Colin Cook, director of economic development; Aidan Grisewood, director of economic strategy; and Kathy Johnston, deputy director, economic analysis and head of economist profession, all from the Scottish Government.

As always, members and witnesses should keep questions and answers as concise as possible. I invite Neil Gray to make an opening statement.