Chamber and committees

£402. Wow! That is quite extraordinary. I like to treat Mrs Simpson occasionally, but to arrive at that kind of bill would be quite staggering, frankly. It is also staggering that there is no upper limit. Presumably the former chief executive felt that they could just get away with spending that amount and not repaying it.

I just want to mop up some things that have occurred to me during the meeting. Following on from Colin Beattie’s excellent line of questioning, Mr Smith, I believe that you said that one in eight expenses claims had no receipts, and that those were largely for entertaining foreign visitors. Were there any favourite haunts that the commission took them to? Did that issue crop up?

The other thing that occurred to me is that we did not get into the detail of the amounts spent on foreign travel and staying abroad when we discussed it earlier. Was the commission booking first-class flights? Were people travelling economy? Were they staying in five-star hotels?

If we are looking at value for money, I think that that is a legitimate question.

Are you able to share that email with the committee?

It would be useful for us to see it.

I have two further questions, the first of which is about the £100 gift vouchers. Where were the gift vouchers for?

Is that it? Will there be anything else?

I would be embarrassed if I were the finance secretary, because she has not said that she disagrees with anything that I just said.

There is a real-terms cut to the health budget. I will get straight to it by talking about my portfolio, then I will touch on others. Last week, Màiri McAllan was quizzed about the cuts to her budget, which she admitted are challenging. If I had been her, I would have been furious. If we are to grow as a nation, we need to invest in transport, net zero and a just transition. Similarly, Neil Gray should have been angry at the cuts to his wellbeing economy, fair work and energy portfolio.

However, Ms McAllan did not give me the impression of being furious when she appeared before the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I asked her about cuts to Strathclyde Partnership for Transport’s capital budget. I say “cuts”, but that budget has been obliterated to nothing, which will have consequences. Projects such as the Glasgow subway modernisation will be affected. The East Kilbride rail enhancement will be hit through cuts to the funding of its park and ride element, and the Lanark transport interchange will experience a financial black hole. Màiri McAllan said that the SPT should use its reserves, but that shows a lack of understanding of its budget—its reserves are accounted for.

The Scottish Government’s budget will impact on our ability to improve public transport and to get people out of their cars and on to it. There are other examples. The bus partnership fund is being cut—again, to zero. That is the fund that pays for infrastructure, thereby allowing buses to move around more easily and quickly.

The Scottish Government says that it wants to cut the extent to which we travel in cars. Well, it could have fooled me. In cash terms, it has cut the total rail services budget by £79.9 million, the future transport fund by more than 60 per cent and the total ferry services budget by £5.5 million. It has cut the total active travel and low-carbon budget by £40.8 million in cash terms. It was meant to spend £320 million on active travel; it will now spend £100 million short of that. People might think that Patrick Harvie should resign over that, but he has not.

I turn to local government. As they do every year under the SNP, councils are making cuts. Those in my patch are shielded to some extent by the booming Strathclyde Pension Fund, which is asking for lower contributions. However, anyone who claims that the Government is putting in enough money to cover what is needed to freeze council tax is wrong. Services will be hit, and some will close. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities argues that a fully funded freeze would require the Scottish Government to provide funding of £300 million, which is £156 million more than is being offered. What is there to prevent a council from increasing council tax? It is the threat of funding being removed; I have heard that if one breaks ranks, they will all be punished. So much for a new era of respect for our councils from the central Government.

If councils do not get the funding that they need, the potholes will get worse. It is becoming a lottery as to whether people in places such as Edinburgh or Glasgow will make it to their destination if they are driving there.

Housing is also taking a hit. This is the second year in a row in which the affordable homes supply programme budget has been reduced. We can therefore kiss goodbye any hope of hitting the Government’s overambitious affordable homes target.

I am just about to close. [Interruption.]

I thank Stephen Kerr for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I welcome the tone of the debate so far.

I, too, was disappointed to hear the announcement by Petroineos last year. Like Stephen Kerr, I would like the refinery to continue operating. If there is any way to achieve that, we should do it. Stephen Kerr is absolutely right that this matter needs to involve both Governments. The UK Government certainly has a strong role to play, but so does the Scottish Government. They need to work together.

Michelle Thomson—it was a privilege to be a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee with her—referred to our report on a just transition for the Grangemouth area. It contained a number of recommendations, one of which was about the Grangemouth future industry board, which has already been mentioned. It is fair to say that, as a committee, we were very frustrated that there was no private sector involvement with the board and, frankly, we found it to be rather secretive. In the words of the report:

“the Committee calls for more clarity on the role and purpose of GFIB and what it is intended to achieve”.

When I was on the committee, I repeatedly mentioned the role of sustainable aviation fuel. I probably raised it at every meeting and bored the pants off members, who, at that point, might not have known what I was on about, although eventually they did, because now everybody is mentioning SAF.

SAF could provide a future for Grangemouth, or a part of its future. My frustration is that, as Michelle Thomson has already said, Grangemouth has not been one of the places that have been earmarked to produce SAF. Frankly, somewhere in Scotland should be making it, but, at the moment, there is nowhere.

We came up with the recommendation that there needs to be legislation

“for a price support mechanism for SAF to accompany the mandate”,

because that

“may be required to incentivise private sector investment in UK and Scottish SAF production”.

In other words, the Government—the UK Government, in this case—needs to create a market for SAF. I gave Graham Stuart quite a grilling when he appeared before the committee—rightly so, as that is my job. The UK Government really needs to do that, because we need to create a market for SAF.

We need to look not just at SAF but at hydrogen, as there are also opportunities there. I am not completely downcast about Grangemouth. I am disappointed with the announcement that was made, but Grangemouth can have a strong future.

Nobody in the debate has yet mentioned the Grangemouth flood protection scheme, which is really important for the wider economy. Michelle Thomson and others know that I have recently written to Màiri McAllan about that. She has responded to me, and I have shared her response with others. She has committed to setting up a task force. [Interruption.] Mr Lumsden is groaning, but I think that, if he sees the letter, which I am happy to share with him, he will see that the tone was quite positive. I would like that task force to be set up, and I want the UK Government to be involved, too, because that scheme needs to go ahead.