Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to get away from the stickiness side of it, although I think that that is right. However, in this scenario, we are trying to recruit somebody internationally. Are we going to prevent the NHS from being able to do that? Again, it is a key service for the poorest people in Scotland. Have you done any work on how your proposals might have an impact on those two issues?

Would anybody else like to respond?

My final question might be more of an observation. On multiyear budgets, you mentioned political instability and the difficulty in 2016. I recall calls for multiyear budgets going back as far as 2010. Looking back, we thought that we had political stability, and the Scottish Government was not delivering multiyear budgets at that point. Is that something that is intrinsic to the political performance of the Scottish Parliament, our institutions and the relationship with local government? I recognise that instability is now the key driving factor, but there is a longer-term problem.

Even under the relatively stable longer-term budgets, the Scottish Government still did not deliver multiyear funding settlements to Scottish public services prior to 2015. It did not do that. It says in the papers that people called for it in 2013. I am challenging this, because I worry that, although political instability in the UK is the key issue right now, if we cannot deliver multiyear funding it is a big problem. Let us hope that we can do so. Is there something about the way in which this place performs that means that people are more reactive, in setting one-year budgets? I am wondering whether we will not find multiyear funding to be the solution.

I share some of my colleagues’ concerns—in particular, about the fantastical nature, to use your words, convener, of some of the numbers and, essentially, the public relations claims on some of this. My overall position aligns with the trade union colleagues we saw last week. In their view, there is insufficient engagement from the Government over some of the issues that Ross Greer has raised. However, recognising the fact that we are in a competitive regime, internationally and across the UK, and that our ports have to be competitive if they are going to attract business, I will, somewhat reluctantly, support the SSI at this stage.

The Government could do an awful lot better on exploring the options that are available to it and dealing with some of the questions that I have raised about transparency and decision making across its economic development prospectus, to make sure that we can have confidence in its decisions.

Minister, how important is a transparent application and assessment process to the strength of the bids?

We are investigating the potential benefits and value for money for taxpayers of such approaches; as a committee, we also have a general interest in Government decision-making processes. It strikes me that a very different approach was taken for investment zones. No process was put in place. On the day that the investment zones were announced, Russel Griggs of South of Scotland Enterprise wrote that he was bitterly disappointed and that he was still awaiting the publication of the selection criteria. People find that confusing.

I will provide some context, and it would be useful to hear the minister’s reflections. My home city of Dundee has been awarded neither green freeport status nor an investment zone, despite being the fourth-largest city in the country. We have the most prestigious and high-achieving life sciences institution in the whole of the UK, we have an outstanding port and we have huge economic need, yet neither of those opportunities has been delivered. Can the Government provide a justification for that?

In that case, I will ask about the generality of the situation. Is what has happened not an inevitable consequence of doing these things on a specific regional basis, rather than taking a national approach? You are here today to talk about a localised, regional approach to economic development, whereby the Government is making certain decisions about how to lift up certain areas. Are we not in a situation in which, essentially, the investment zones are just pork? Is this not just a case of pork-barrel politics, with the Scottish National Party and the Tories deciding to allocate the zones to areas of political priority? Does such an approach not open up that possibility?

That is useful detail. It is in stark contrast to the process that was followed by the Government for investment zones, on which Neil Gray said in response to a written question from me:

“The invitation to host an Investment Zone was not subject to a bidding or application process”.—[Written Answers, 20 July 2023; S6W-19604.]

Minister, you said that it was “incredibly important” to have a proper process. Why was that approach not followed for investment zones?

Could you outline why the STUC’s submission is critical of the resource spending review that was previously published by the Government?