Seòmar agus comataidhean

You mentioned in passing the Prestwick spaceport, which was dropped, and we understand the reasons for that. What will happen to the funding that was allocated for that? Will it simply drop away? Are you seeking to redeploy it elsewhere? Can you explain that?

Good morning, minister and colleagues.

Thank you for setting out your view on the LCM in your opening statement. It is fair to say that the advice to the committee from the Scottish Parliament information centre is that this is an area in which lines between what is devolved and what is reserved are quite blurry, and it is quite difficult to distinguish between what might be a reserved competence and what might be a devolved competence. For example, regulations covering technical standards for products are reserved, but regulations relating to efficiency and effectiveness might not be, and it is perhaps difficult to distinguish between the two.

It would be helpful if you or your officials could give us some practical examples of areas in which a conflict might arise, if you are able to do so. That might better explain your hesitancy about granting consent.

Thank you for confirming the complexity of the issue, which is helpful in itself.

Can I ask about one more thing? You referred to EU alignment. With regard to regulation powers in this area, is there anything that the Scottish Government would do differently from the UK Government, or is it too early to make that prediction? I know that the Scottish Government’s general approach is to progress with EU alignment where possible, but would the Scottish Government seek to do that even if it meant taking an approach that was different from that of the UK Government?

My second question is on a slightly different topic, which is the timescale for the deal. The Glasgow city deal has the longest timescale, at 20 years. For some, it is 15 years, although for most it is 10 years.

We are now 10 years into the Glasgow city deal. The world looked very different 10 years ago, and it will look even more different 10 years from now. Is the timescale realistic? What impact does it have on planning for projects? Are the projects that you have picked to be part of the deals timeless projects, in effect, that will have a benefit regardless of the changes over two decades?

Good morning. I want to follow on from the convener’s line of questioning. I suspect, given what you have said in response to him, that I probably know the answer to this question already, but I will ask it anyway.

If we did not have the city deals, would the projects have proceeded at all? Last year, the committee went to visit the Aberdeen south harbour project, for example, and we saw the work that has been done there. There is also the Inverness castle development—I say to Matt Bailey that I am an Invernessian by birth, so it is great to see the castle being brought back into use as a tourist asset.

If we did not have the city deals, what would be the prospects for developments like those proceeding? Who wants to start?

I see that Stuart Bews wants to come in.

You should not bother touching the buttons, by the way—they will be controlled remotely.

Thanks.

My second question touches on what Mr McInroy said in answer to my first, but it goes in a slightly different direction. The time period for most of the deals is 10 years; some are 15; and Glasgow’s is 20. Given how fast the economy and society are changing, can we realistically make a judgment now on whether a project will, in 20 years’ time, deliver the benefits that we think are appropriate today?

Does Audit Scotland have any observations on this?

Good morning. A lot of the questions that I was going to ask have been covered by others, but there are two things that I want to follow up on.

For the first question, I want to return to Daniel Johnson’s earlier questions and take a step back from all of this. When I look at the Tay cities deal in my area and some of the projects that have come out of it, I see the massive investment in, for example, the James Hutton Institute outside Dundee, which has been extremely beneficial, and the opening of the new Perth museum, which has been a tremendous asset to the city, with visitor numbers since its opening in April well exceeding original projections. It is a great success. My question, then, which I suppose is for Mr McInroy or Mr Mitchell, is this: if we had not had the city deals, would such projects have proceeded?

Did you want to add anything, Mr Mitchell?

I want to follow up the sustainable aviation fuel issue, which the committee is really interested in and has pursued in previous lines of questioning, including with Ineos and PetroChina last week.

As it said at that time, it is also interested in the opportunity and it is part of project willow. Mr Thomson, you make a compelling case around the notion of repurposing the existing refinery and how it could be done at a relatively low cost. If you are right, why do Ineos and PetroChina not see that opportunity for itself?