Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the interests of balance, the purpose of the meeting is to hear the Government’s view on the late submission of some of the evidence that the committee has received, and to allow it to provide an assurance to the committee about that. I thank the minister for doing that and for attending the meeting.

My last question for you is this: how well or otherwise do you think the Ayrshire growth deal interacts with neighbouring growth deals? I am thinking about the Glasgow city region deal and its Clyde metro project, the mass transit issues and so on, as well as the Borderlands growth deal, South of Scotland Enterprise and the regional funding that they get. Have we been able to link in with some of that work in order to deliver a wee bit of additional benefit for Ayrshire?

Exactly, convener—thank you very much. The focus is now firmly on Ayrshire. Dave McDowall is my colleague from Ayrshire, but I think that the questions could be answered by any of the colleagues round the table. First, I remind everyone of the broad aims of the Ayrshire growth deal. The funding package includes public funding of £250 million, and it is hoped to lever in £300 million of private sector investment and to create 7,000 jobs. Those were the stated objectives around four years ago. How far down that road would you say that we are?

Minister, in the list that you gave of devolved issues involved, you mentioned pesticides as, I think, an example of products that have an environmental impact. Could you clarify whether we face the prospect that the UK could take a different approach to the sale, transport and use of pesticides in Scotland, which would fundamentally oppose the view that the Scottish Government might have on the same matter? Could you say something about the situation that applies to Northern Ireland, which is allowed to align more closely with EU guidelines? Is it possible that three different sets of circumstances could apply to the use, sale and transport of pesticides?

Thanks for that. It is a tall order to try to create something like 7,000 jobs, but the target has been stated, so we will all be held to account for it. The benefit that you have described with regard to providing skills and work opportunities for 4,000 people has to be part of that, though, and it would never have happened had it not been for the growth deal investment making it possible. I presume that we will judge that in the round but, overall, it would be part of that.

How easy has having flexibility and adapting to change been not only for Ayrshire but for the other growth deals? Have you found that quite difficult? Murdo Fraser mentioned the spaceport project, which I presume went through the same rigorous business case processes, but has since been dropped. You have mentioned the subsea cable project, too. How easy or difficult is it for the growth deals to adapt to changing circumstances and perhaps to repurpose not just the funding but some of the concepts and the vision around projects that are no longer viable?

What about the transport infrastructure side of things, and the Clyde metro? Do you see any opportunities for us to improve our offer in Ayrshire to get our citizens who prefer to work in the Glasgow area to get there faster, quicker and smarter—with park and rides and all that stuff? Does that fit in the interface with the Clyde metro?

Minister, you mentioned communications and the issues in that regard that have been raised with the committee in the past couple of years. You have given the committee some assurances about the communications improving. Do residents get information from any source other than the Scottish Government? Do the builders who built the buildings that may be subject to this work communicate regularly or otherwise with the residents? When will we see some tangible evidence that residents are getting the information that they seek?

So you need the power to compel, because your experience is that you might not get a response or the quality of response that you hope for.

Good morning, minister. I have a couple of questions. The Renters’ Rights Bill sets out that there will be a defence for a prospective landlord to show that the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Could you give some examples of what that might mean in practice?