1. To ask the Scottish Government when the full membership of the interim board for the south of Scotland enterprise agency will be announced. (S5O-01664)

Membership of the south of Scotland economic partnership was announced on 17 January.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Although he promised that the new board would be up and running by the end of last year, I very much welcome that he has—at last—announced its membership. I am sure that that had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that my question was being asked today.

Does the cabinet secretary share the concerns of stakeholders, particularly those in the business community and the third sector locally, that they were not consulted on who the members of the interim board should be? Will he give an assurance that, when it comes to appointing the members of the full agency, that process will be led by stakeholders in the south of Scotland and not imposed from Edinburgh? Does he also accept the concerns of a number of local stakeholders that the £10 million budget that he has announced, which is about 15 per cent of the budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, will not deliver the transformational economic change that we need in the south of Scotland?

I think that we should be willing to let Colin Smyth go along in his own little bubble, in which he is convinced that the announcement was due to a question that he was due to ask.

Colin Smyth referred to the £10 million for the agency. What did Labour do? Did Labour ever establish such an agency?

Members:

No.

Did Labour ever put £10 million into the south of Scotland?

Members:

No.

Colin Smyth’s comments are absolute nonsense.

In a tweet, Mr Smyth attacked the board’s membership, and there is an allegation that the members are Scottish National Party appointees. How biased are we if we have appointed people such as Lord Thurso, Wendy Alexander and Susan Deacon? Again, his comments are absolute nonsense. I wonder how Colin Smyth, as a local MSP, expects to have any productive relationship with that vitally important board if he attacks its members on the day of their appointment.

The interim board will make a big difference. It will lead to the establishment of the substantive body, for which we will bring forward legislation this year. The partnership has been established and will have £10 million to spend. That is far more than the Labour Party ever did in Dumfries and Galloway or in the rest of the Scottish Borders.

I am pleased to see so many women on the interim board. The cabinet secretary will be aware that an economic challenge for the south of Scotland is that of encouraging young people to stay in or move to the area and to live and work there. How will the board seek to address that issue?

I agree that securing diversity on the partnership was important. We are ambitious for the partnership. It has an opportunity to bring a fresh approach to tackling the challenges and opportunities in the south of Scotland. The partnership will deliver a prioritised work plan that is tailored to the needs of the area and informed by the views of people across the area. As I said, we have announced £10 million in additional resources to support it in its activities.

As part of its engagement, the partnership will want to seek the views of young people to shape its work. We want the south of Scotland to have a thriving economy in which young people have opportunities to develop skills, take up apprenticeships and have good-quality jobs, and we want it to be seen as an attractive place in which to live and work.

I know that Professor Griggs, the chair of the partnership, would be happy to meet the member to discuss the partnership’s work.

I am encouraged by the wide breadth of knowledge and expertise of those appointed to the south of Scotland economic partnership. However, there seems to be lack of tech focus. Will the cabinet secretary outline whether the board will feed into and help to improve connectivity in the south of Scotland, and, if so, how it will do that? What role will the agency have in that regard?

There is substantial technical expertise in the body. Perhaps Rachael Hamilton has just seen an announcement of the names of the board members. It may be worth while for her to investigate further and to find out the technical expertise of the members.

I am grateful for Rachael Hamilton’s statement about the quality of the people on the board—that is the right approach to take. There are exceptional people on the board. As I said, we will bring forward proposals for the substantive body this year. That will, of course, allow us to have a chance to see the work of the current members and to think about the board’s future composition.

We have acted on the matter quite quickly, as other parties in the chamber have asked us to do. I can give Rachael Hamilton an assurance on the engagement that she seeks to see happening, not least in relation to connectivity. For that reason, I am very pleased that hauliers, for example, are represented on the board. The board will take that work forward as part of its priorities and work plan.

I am happy to discuss the matter further with Rachael Hamilton if she feels that things are not progressing in the way that she would like.