Seòmar agus comataidhean

Funnily enough, I recognise neither of those figures.

The figures in front of me indicate that the resource allocation is £39.86 million next year. Alongside that, there is capital for things such as the rural tourism infrastructure fund.

Two additional funds were allocated last year for VisitScotland, as a one-off, to reflect some of the challenges that the tourism economy was facing. One was about trying to distribute visitors over a wider area. There were big problems with tourism congestion in certain areas, so there was £1 million to support areas that are less visited. The other was about increasing international marketing because of the challenges around that. Those were both one-off budgets. However, our funding continues to support VisitScotland, which has a key role to play.

In addition, we should not lose track of the fact that this summer in particular is likely to be quite busy, and there are huge opportunities for VisitScotland in people travelling to or watching big sporting events, for example. It can do a lot out of that to support the accommodation and hospitality sectors.

A lot of—

I am extremely sympathetic to some of the criticisms of the methodology. That is why I strongly supported the approach that the Government took last year, which was to have a formal and independent review of the methodology. I appreciate the need to receive and implement the recommendations of that review. I am also conscious that there will be big questions for the next session of Parliament on the issue of reviewing non-domestic rates and implementing any changes to the methodology, but there are also far bigger questions. The issue comes up a lot in Parliament.

Obviously, the approach in England and Wales was in essence to bring the assessors more in-house. That would be a fundamental change in how assessors operate, which I personally do not favour, because independence of the assessors means that Governments are less likely to tamper or interfere with what the assessors do. However, I accept that non-domestic rates need to feature significantly in the next session of Parliament.

I am really sorry to say this, but that makes absolutely no sense. If the funding is generated by those businesses when they bid for the leases, you cannot simultaneously take an equity stake in the companies that have just bid for the leases. It is just a question of timing. What you can do is reinvest the funding that was raised through the bidding on those leases and invest it in the projects that come after the initial leases, which is what we are doing with the £500 million that has been pledged to the supply chain. I would point to what is happening in Ardersier and Kishorn, and I think that the Pentland facility might be another example—someone can correct me if I am wrong. That all involves funding that came from the leasing rounds and has been reinvested. However, we could not have taken an equity stake in the companies at the point when they were bidding, using the money that they were pledging to spend.

With a question like that, it is always easier to focus on the biggest concerns and risks, so I will start with the biggest concerns and risks, as I see them. Right now, there are probably three that I would point to.

Yesterday, I answered a question on what the proposal on new tariffs might mean for business. We know that the whisky industry has lost about 1,000 jobs and that tariffs are costing the industry millions every month, and we are now talking about the risk of increased tariffs on top of what the industry is already grappling with. That uncertainty alone makes it almost impossible for businesses to plan. We are a small nation. We rely on export and international trade, and we are dependent on high-performing sectors that are disproportionately affected by global headwinds and so on, all of which you know.

The big issue for us will be how to invest in new markets and support trade to new markets. Some of that might be quite uncomfortable, and some might run counter to what some parties in the Parliament believe that Scotland should or should not be doing, particularly on international trade. However, it is now becoming a bit of an existential risk for us if we do not build some of those strong links. There is a lot of interest. Just before Christmas, we hosted the first Investopia global event from the United Arab Emirates here in Scotland, at which we showcased some really exciting Scottish businesses. We will need a real intention to work with new markets.

The second risk is the continued increase in costs. From looking at this morning’s inflation figures and some of the challenges that remain on energy costs, we can see that the situation is really challenging. I therefore do not think that the Government should be adding costs. Although I am in favour of our doing the right thing and ensuring that regulation makes sense, given the burden of costs that businesses could potentially be carrying over the next few years, I think that, in the next session, the Parliament needs to carefully consider how it adds to or removes from that burden.

My last point is about backing key sectors that have the most potential to grow the economy. You talked about the just transition. We have a huge opportunity with the supply chain for offshore wind, but that supply chain will not get orders if the offshore wind industry does not get through the various gateways that it needs to get through on consenting, auction rounds and grid connectivity. Both Governments should just say, “Look, this is the greatest opportunity to create jobs and support local economies—let’s absolutely back it. We will do our level best on rapid consenting—obviously, while making sure that it is right—and we need ever more projects to get through auction rounds.” Although I very much welcomed the fact that two Scottish projects got through in auction round 7 last week, that has not dealt with the transmission charging issue for some of the more expensive projects, which is where the real value lies.

I am sorry if that answer was a bit broader than you anticipated, but those are three risks and three opportunities that I think could remain as risks if we do not deal with them.

09:15

I am somewhat distracted by the choral soundtrack that I can hear.

That is a good example of getting through consenting and auction rounds. The company has some issues still to resolve, but that will be up to it. The project represents a huge opportunity in terms of supply chain. We need to get the manufacturers over the line, one of which is currently caught up in an international security question.

We are.

We will draw the Scottish National Investment Bank’s attention to what you are saying. Obviously, it is independent of me—I do not tell it what to do—but I am sure that it can take into account what has been said in our exchanges. However, I reiterate the point that £150 million of the £500 million that has been pledged is being invested in the energy transition in those businesses, and that will generate a return. I guess I am agreeing with the principle that you are outlining; I am just disagreeing that we can do that at the scale that some other countries might.