1. To ask the Scottish Government whether decisions regarding Highlands and Islands Enterprise economic development and social support spending will be made locally by people who live and work in the area. (S5O-00449)

Highlands and Islands Enterprise will continue to be locally based, managed and directed to provide dedicated support to the Highlands and Islands economy.

At what level of financial assistance will HIE staff have to revert to the board for a decision? Although the Government insists that there is support for its plan for an overarching board, none of the 126 published responses shows that support. Could it be that everyone else wants major decisions relating to the Highlands and Islands to be taken in the Highlands and Islands?

On financial matters, I said last week in the chamber that decision making remains with Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Issues relating to governance are being taken forward by a number of people in the ministerial review group, which includes people from the Highlands and Islands.

I disagree with the number that Rhoda Grant has given: more than 300 individuals or groups responded, and within those responses a substantial number, including from Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and Strathclyde University, talked about the need for an overarching strategic board, so there is evidence of support for that.

It has been our view that what HIE currently does, it does very well, but it is also the case that some other things that have been brought to the Highlands, such as the first-ever Government commitment to the dualling of the A9 and the A96—no previous Government did that—and the establishment of a city deal, as well as the work that has been done by Fergus Ewing on the Rio Tinto investments, have happened in addition to what HIE has done. We want to ensure that more of that happens, so it could well be the case that HIE—far from the picture that is being painted by Rhoda Grant and others—ends up with more authority and more powers than it had at the start of the review.

When HIE’s predecessor, the Highlands and Islands Development Board, was first established, its founder, Willie Ross, said that the Highlands needed an agency with the powers to “deal comprehensively” with every obstacle in the way of economic and social improvement. Will HIE continue to be in a position to do that?

The Government has made it clear that we will maintain the dedicated support, including HIE’s remit to strengthen communities, that is the basis of Kate Forbes’s question. That remit will be locally based, managed and directed by HIE and will protect the unique services that HIE delivers for our Highlands and Islands economy. As I said in my response to Rhoda Grant, it is our intention that HIE be more than that—not least in terms of skills, and certainly in terms of support for attracting international investment, in which we believe more can be done in respect of the activities of HIE. The vital components of what HIE has done until now will remain, but with additional powers and support from the other agencies that are subject to the review.

The Cabinet secretary will be aware that the campaign to save the HIE board has received support from its former chairman and a member of his party, the respected Professor Jim Hunter, who not only accused the Government of committing an “assault” on HIE’s founding principles but said:

“In a country as diverse as ours ... this centralism run riot needs resisting.”

Does the cabinet secretary agree with those comments by a member of his own party?

It is fair to say that the SNP is a broad church, and that we include people with different views, which is important in a democratic party and gives the lie to previous accusations from the Conservatives.

However, it is important to recognise, as I have done already, that the Highlands and Islands development agency has substantial support in the Highlands for the work that it has done over many years. That is why we have said that we intend to maintain Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It will be enshrined, as it is now, as a legal agency, and the chief executive and staff will remain, so the people who provide the vital services that I mentioned will remain. However, as I have said in my two previous responses, we think that it is possible to build on what has been done and to achieve even more.