Chamber and committees

It is hugely important for us in Ayrshire, but from a financial perspective, the committee and the Auditor General are asking about the financial implications of longer-term support, in the absence of a buyer. Can you say anything about progress in that regard?

My question is on the European structural and investment funds issue that is also covered in the Auditor General’s report. We know that the UK Government committed to replacing those funds, which came from the European Union, and that an estimated £183 million a year is coming to Scotland.

First, has that sum been confirmed yet? Secondly, and importantly for the committee, what is to be the role of the committee, the Scottish Parliament and Audit Scotland in scrutinising that spend and accounting for it in Scotland? We did that previously but, as far as I know, none of us is aware of where the scrutiny function will lie for that funding. It might fall under the shared prosperity or levelling up funds and so on, but we do not know yet. We do not even know whether the Scottish Parliament will have the same role in scrutinising the spend that we had previously. I would be obliged if you could clarify any of that for the committee.

The transition of Scottish Canals from a public body to an NDPB seems to have brought about many or most of the issues. Paragraph 10 of the report says that the decision to change the status from public body to NDPB resulted from a review by the Office for National Statistics. Did no one think that that would put a bit of a millstone around the neck of Scottish Canals? Joanne Brown described the substantial change in requirements. Being one type of body or the other makes a substantial difference to how the assets are accounted for. Did nobody think about that before the decision was made about changing the organisation’s status?

In the absence of new proposals that might be delivered within the context of NPF4, how do we deal with the high streets that have—as we saw yesterday—empty, abandoned and derelict cinemas and shops, with trees growing out of them and graffiti all over the windows? There are no plans or proposals coming from the communities at the moment for any of that stuff. Are the planning powers that we have sufficient to deal with any of that?

Local people ask me what they can do about the problem and how they can help to improve the powers that the planning authorities need so that they can intervene and turn those areas around. There is a hope that NPF4 will embrace that and allow the local authorities to intervene more directly to improve the look, feel and vibrancy of built heritage in the urban setting that has been dormant and abandoned for so long. Anything that you could say on that would be very welcome, minister.

Good morning, minister. I want to touch on a subject that has come up time and again in our evidence sessions to date, which is how the NPF4 can influence the look and feel of our town centres. As you know, and as all members will be aware, we all suffer from complaints from constituents about our high streets, where there are abandoned or derelict parcels of land, and that also applies to shops and buildings. Multiple ownership is often involved.

In one of our sessions, we heard from Celebrate Kilmarnock about some of the good work that is going on down there to create more community spaces and dispose of old redundant properties and buildings. Yesterday, the committee met some people in Govan and we heard some of their wonderful ideas about regenerating that part of the city of Glasgow. Will you give us a flavour of how the NPF4 can influence the look and feel of our town centres to deal with the problems I have mentioned, some of which have been prevalent for many years?

That is really helpful. That has been a recurring theme for the committee, and those comments are welcome.

My final question is about how NPF4 integrates with other things. You mentioned STPR2. I am also interested in how NPF4 integrates with the city growth deals, for example. Our Govan friends talked about that yesterday. One of their onstream projects will be funded through the city growth deal. How do you see NPF4 integrating with other major initiatives such as city growth deal funding and the levelling up funding that is, as we know, coming in from another direction? How can we ensure that it is all co-ordinated and everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet as far as possible?

Before I ask a question on SEPA’s financial sustainability in light of the cyberattack, I will ask about something else about which I am curious.

What volume of data are we talking about? In the report, I can see only a reference in the appendix, on page 9, to about 1.2GB of data being stolen. Is that it? Are we talking about only 1.2GB of data? That is a tiny amount of data that has had such a catastrophic impact.

I refer to my earlier point about offline storage. You can buy data sticks that accommodate huge amounts of data for £10 or £50. You can put almost your entire data set on separate physical data sticks. Nothing can hack them if you do that.

Is there any information on the volume of data that SEPA lost and whether the right strategy is in place to protect it?

My final question is about the long-term implications for SEPA’s financial sustainability. You said that we do not know the full cost of the cyberattack, but do you have any indications of how it will affect SEPA’s financial sustainability?

I imagine that cyberattackers make a reasoned guess about how we all behave when we use computers. We are all vulnerable to inadvertently clicking on a link in an email—that seems to be a common route. It seems to me that all systems need the sophistication to guard against that, even when we make those mistakes. Perhaps your colleagues can talk about whether additional protections can be put into systems so that, if we are subjected to phishing and even if we click links, a degree of protection is still available.

Thank you.

Convener, I hope to come back in later, but for the moment I pass back to you.