Chamber and committees

Yes, I will. Thank you very much for having me back. If I recall correctly, the last time that we met was in May, when we were in the pre-election period, which might have constrained aspects of what I could say. Therefore, I am delighted to be back in front of the committee and able to speak slightly more freely in that regard.

When I returned to the Government in May, there had been plans for an NSET refresh, but I decided that that was not the direction that I wanted to go in. The first reason for that was that the First Minister made it clear in the first few days of his tenure that he wanted fewer documents written and more actions delivered, and the idea of refreshing a strategy and all the work that would go with that, only a couple of years into a 10-year strategy, did not seem like the best use of our time.

The second reason was that, to my mind, there was an opportunity with the programme for government to clarify the actions that we were going to focus on. All the actions are very much aligned with NSET, so the programme for government allowed us to be really clear, with stakeholders and Parliament, about the priorities.

Thirdly, my sense of NSET has always been that some actions will be easier or more straightforward to deliver. My officials might correct me, but I think that 25 per cent of the actions are complete, while 54 per cent are in progress. Some of the completed actions include the roll-out of Techscaler, which I think still largely enjoys the support of all parties in Parliament. We have been able to make progress on those elements.

Other things require greater focus and attention from us. One example would be attracting investment, and there was a lot in the programme for government about how we are going to accelerate those actions in NSET.

Those are some of the reasons for our deciding that, in the spirit of the First Minister’s commitment to write less and do more, we should write less and do more with the resources that we have.

Tourism is prioritised both in my diary and in my engagement with stakeholders. Indeed, at the Thistle awards on Friday night, we recognised the brilliant work that tourism businesses do. VisitScotland plays an important role in that regard—its marketing spend delivered around £56.7 million of additional net economic benefit. We are aware of the great work that VisitScotland does; it is accountable in part to the industry, too, and I hope that the industry is confident in the work that it does. I certainly am.

You have talked about the challenging decisions that we have had to take. I do not think that any part of the Scottish Government’s budget has been immune to some of those difficult decisions. I am quite relieved that, as far as my budget area is concerned, there has not been a huge impact since the summer. We have had an impact on VisitScotland. Obviously, that is a matter of concern, but there is work that VisitScotland can do. The impact was on the marketing budget, and I have discussed with VisitScotland how it can do more in-house work instead of outsourcing it. I have shared with VisitScotland my disappointment and concern, but those are the realities of the extremely challenging financial environment in which we are operating.

I can absolutely clarify that Mark Logan is definitely not a special adviser. It is very important to note that he has not in any way been recruited as a special adviser; he is not a political appointment. I have encouraged him in the past to engage with other parties in the Parliament—and I think he has taken that on board. That includes briefing people on what is being done, taking on board any views, thoughts and ideas. I have to say explicitly that he is not, and can never be, a political appointment.

In the private sector, a business whose entire focus was on a particular end and aim would think it quite strange to be asked to provide the budget for that end and aim. The whole point of the national strategy for economic transformation is that the entire Government needs to focus on it.

I would like every penny that the Government spends to be spent on ways to innovate. For example, the entire health budget is spent on improving people’s health and wellbeing. We can do that effectively through NSET by attracting as much investment as possible into the country, so that we can increase the revenue that is available to reinvest in the health service. We can also do that through innovation and finding better ways of doing things.

I understand where you are coming from, but I knowing how these things go—the minute that I publish a figure, it will immediately exclude areas that I really want to be more about innovation and the NSET aims. Also, in parliamentary debates, people get hung up on particular figures, which completely undermines the whole point that the NSET way of thinking should be embedded in every portfolio.

I have touched on that issue in the past. It is a matter of concern, particularly in rural coastal areas, where, in some cases, there are double-digit percentage forecasts of decline for the next 40 years. Perhaps that picture masks the ageing demographics, because the impact on the working-age population is more stark.

The figures that we discussed in Shetland on Monday were quite concerning with regard to the expected growth in the over-50 population and the significant shrinking of the working-age population, given the strain that that will cause. That is why it is imperative that we take a cross-Government and cross-nation approach to economic prosperity. Too often, we assume that economic activity happens only in the private sector. However, we have third sector organisations and good work can be done in collaboration with the public sector, and that needs to be distributed around the country as much as possible.

Because of the role that Ferguson Marine plays, we have always wanted it to have a long and sustainable future. Clearly, the short-term objective—which, I hope, will soon come to a conclusion—was to deliver both vessels. Over and above that, however, I believe that Ferguson Marine’s future is in competing internationally for new orders. Over the past few years, it has been totally focused on delivering the two vessels. Now that some of that work is coming to a conclusion, there is an opportunity to reinvest in the yard in order to make it fit for purpose and able to compete. For example, some of the funding could be invested in facilities that are more in line with all other successful yards of that size and type.

There has been a lot of due diligence work. You will know that the original bid was rejected. The new bid is undergoing due diligence to make sure that we can make that investment.

I am not in a position to speak to that in any great detail, so could I come back to the committee with an update on compulsory sales orders? That would perhaps be in the context of the green industrial strategy and some of the reform work that is going on in planning right now, because it is not independent of the aims in the programme for government around masterplan consent areas and so on. It is all kind of part of the same world, so it might be useful to come back with more substantive information.

That is quite a remarkable way of turning a positive that we can all get behind into a negative.

We need to drill down into those numbers, and I have asked for more robust granular data, for example on where people are settling. Willie Coffey raised the point about our rural communities; I mentioned in my answer to him that we have been talking about National Records of Scotland’s forecasts, which, in essence, plateau over the next 40 years, with significant drops in rural areas and significant increases in urban areas. Those figures disrupt that general trend.

Looking at Scotland’s public services right now, my greatest worry is that it is the very people whom we need who are the most excluded by our current immigration and visa systems. That is the bottom line. Last week, Russell Findlay raised the issue of delayed discharge, which a number of people have concerns about. The big problem with delayed discharge is the workforce: right now, we know that far more people could be in the country who are excluded from it on the basis that they do not earn enough or are not considered to be skilled enough by the UK Government. That is quite an affront to them. I know that many of us entrust loved elderly relatives to such people.

On Monday, we heard that there are massive housing sites in Shetland that are ready to go, but the big problem is workforce. Quite a number of Europeans used to work in Shetland, in the construction industry in particular, but private sector construction businesses have told me that they have all now left to go home.

I agree that we have to drill down into the figures. The population figures that were published yesterday are a cause for celebration, but I would like to see higher levels of inward migration, and I think that visas have a role to play in that. I am assuming that those figures would have been collated prior to the most recent clampdown on visas and immigration.

We do not see the data in advance of it being published. It was published yesterday, I believe, and we have discussed it internally in Government. The ask has been for there to be a more granular drill-down so that that detail can be shared across cabinet secretaries and across portfolios to allow us to better understand the implications of it. I imagine that Angus Robertson would be able to return to the Parliament with more data. It is helpful to understand what is motivating people to move to Scotland and how we can build on that so that we can motivate more people to do that.

I also think that the rhetoric is important, for two reasons. First, I confess to being really disheartened when there is a constant drumbeat of negativity in our political discourse about why people should not move to Scotland. In general, what we hear from the Opposition is that everything is rubbish; points are made about tax and so on. I think that we forget that that has a negative impact on whether people want to move to the country. I have often heard it said that the negative rhetoric about tax is more off-putting than the tax itself. That has certainly been the case over the past few years. The NRS figures are interesting because they represent positive rhetoric about Scotland that we can all get behind, which, I would hope, would encourage other people to move to Scotland.

Secondly, how we respond is important. The Government is proud and delighted that there has been an increase in migration to Scotland. We want Scotland to be a welcoming place for migrants and immigrants. Given what other parties are saying about their concerns about immigration, it is so important that we stand together in Scotland and say to immigrants, “We welcome you—we want you to come here.” We recognise that there is a moral imperative for us to welcome people to Scotland; more than that, we recognise that it is an unashamed economic imperative that we do so.

If our problem has long been emigration, I hope that the way that we respond to the recent figures will reverberate across our political discourse and, perhaps, further afield, to illustrate the fact that we want people to make their home here.

Let me make a stab at that and then hand over to Richard Rollison.