Chamber and committees

That is interesting, because there is no doubt that there is a need in that particular case—and, I imagine, in other cases. However, as I said, the question is, given such changes, about the objective of the original deals and how they were put together after quite a long process.

We talked earlier about housing and how important it is. It is obviously a major and important issue in the Highlands and Islands and across Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch, which is the constituency that you represent, and which we both represent in one way or another.

You talked about increases in the housing budget this year and in the next budget, which are welcome, but they are, of course, making up for cuts in previous years. Do you accept that the previous cuts are having, and have had, a significant impact—in particular, in relation to providing affordable housing in some of the most remote and rural communities in Scotland, which we already struggle to get people to come and work in?

A lot of businesses went online, but there are probably still many businesses that are not online, or are not at that level. It might be helpful to get a better understanding of the situation.

I have a question about VisitScotland and its costs. We know that we do not spend as much as Ireland, for example, on our tourism offer and promotion. The sector has experienced huge pressure, including on short-term lets, and there are real concerns about a tourism tax, as I am sure that you have seen in your inbox as a constituency MSP.

You talked earlier about people booking things and getting their information online or doing all of that on their phones, which is why we do not need iCentres. However, many of the people who speak to me have suggested that those iCentres have gone because of budget cuts. There is real concern and anger in a lot of communities, particularly among those who work in the tourism sector and in largely remote communities, about the loss of the centres. Do you recognise that? Have you heard that yourself? If the centres were essentially outdated, why is there real concern about their loss?

As an Orcadian.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and team.

I want to cover a few areas that have come up today, but I will first continue on the city and region growth deals with a quick question about a particular case—the Corran Narrows ferry—that happens to be in your constituency and my region. There has been repurposing of UK Government and Scottish Government funds for infrastructure and for a new ferry. I am not going to dwell on whether that is what the community wants or whether it is the right answer. Do you have any concerns that repurposing that money and directing it to other areas might affect the overall objectives of the deal, given that, before the deals were in place, the funding would probably have had to come from councils, together with the Scottish Government? The deals are therefore not really being used for the intentions that existed in the first place.

I will finish on this point. We should remember that we centralised control of the tourism centres and the local tourism bodies, and we are now basically asking communities to go back to running and marketing their own tourism, certainly on the ground. It feels as if we are almost going back to where we started. I do not disagree with you; in many ways, local communities have the most passion, knowledge and understanding when it comes to these matters. I am just saying that we have gone through a process of flipping between the two.

You will know about the pressure on high streets, which mainly concerns some of the sectors that we have already talked about—hospitality and the like. The DigitalBoost programme has been suspended, or rather paused, at a level of £1.6 million. Why is that? I appreciate that that is a very specific question. Given the importance of helping businesses to get online so that they can supplement their bricks-and-mortar incomes with online activity, why has that happened?

I will address my comments initially to Matt Bailey, as they are about the Inverness and Highland deal. Matt, you talked about the ability to act quickly, and one of the things that I have questioned in the past is the issue of flexibility. You will be aware that some of that flexibility has been used for work on the Corran Narrows crossing.

In November 2023, the UK Government signed off on £20 million-worth of the funding for the deal being used for infrastructure. Last month—27 November—the Scottish Government signed off on £28 million for a new electric ferry. A year is a long timeline between decisions on what is essentially the same project—a new ferry for the Corran Narrows crossing. On the logistics side, why was there such a difference between when those decisions were made?

I will use that again as an example. I am a great supporter of having a new ferry or a new crossing, and there are arguments as to what it should be, but I wonder about the principle of flexibility and taking money out of what I think would have been road projects—the A9/A96 link and the A9/A82 Longman junction—and using it in areas such as ferry replacement that are a standard part of Highland Council’s budget. Is that a concern for the council, or was it something that was considered quite deeply? That is something that may be an issue for other councils as well.

Thanks very much.

For that flexibility to be allowed, did the project have to be totally different? Rather than just being a straight replacement of the existing ferry with maybe another diesel ferry, which some people in the local area would want, did it have to be something that could meet the obligations of the deal in terms of climate or the like?

Lastly, on that point, the budget for those pieces of transport infrastructure has not come close to being utilised yet, although that may well happen. Has there been an issue in terms of transport delivery? Have there been particular reasons why that budget has not yet been used as fully as the others have?