Seòmar agus comataidhean

In its report, the Climate Change Committee called out risks that are down to UK Government action or inaction around low-carbon heat in existing homes. It made reference to “details of market-based mechanisms”, associated funding and so on.

I want to explore the £500 million just transition fund a wee bit more to get a bit more flavour of how the Government is able to release the funding and protect it, given the constraints and the real-terms cut in its budget. Can you give us a bit more information about that to help us understand some of the challenges related to that fund?

You have given us a lot of flavour. Being given more money is one route, but are you hearing the calls from across the Scottish Parliament for vastly increased borrowing powers for the Scottish Government—such as there would be for any normal Government that might want to undertake ambitious policies—so that we can crowd in private sector funding?

We all agree that no Government will be able to entirely fund what is needed, and that Governments will need to crowd in private sector funding, so are you hearing, in your private discussions, the agreed calls from across the Parliament for extra borrowing powers to do that sort of activity? You might not be able to disclose that.

I am sorry if I sounded as though I was having a pop at you, David; I totally appreciate that your expertise cannot cover everything. Perhaps, though, we can fold the issue into future sessions, because the fact is that, although we are talking about what feel like quite big numbers, they pale into insignificance when we look at the whole gamut. You are correct in what you have said about cuts to HMRC, which suggests that the issue will get only worse, rather than better. Although you are right that this is a global issue, the UK is well up the league table for this; I think that it is the second most corrupt country in this regard after the US, although people might argue about that. That is important, because we tend to look at what we can see rather than guess at what we cannot see, which is growing at a rate of knots.

Going back to the convener’s point about the Office of Tax Simplification, I note the big numbers that have been bandied about—the £6 billion black hole in the finances, the fuel duty escalator and £10 billion per month on debt interest. The National Crime Agency estimates that about £100 billion each year is lost to the UK as a result of money laundering while—although figures vary here—roughly £190 billion is lost every year, because of fraud.

The scale of those figures is staggering. Might the IFS consider looking more actively at that, given that we have almost a shadow economy running? The UK Government appears to have no appetite to tackle it; indeed, it is getting rid of the Office of Tax Simplification, even though it is the complexity in the tax system that provides the wriggle room for those startling losses to UK GDP. I am surprised to hear that neither of you has followed up on the plan to get rid of the Office of Tax Simplification.

Good morning. I absolutely appreciate the complexity and the challenge of what you are trying to do. I am entirely sympathetic in that regard.

One of the two areas that I often major on is the inclusion of women. I recall that, in relation to COP26, the First Minister described the Scottish Government as a “commitment maker”, and that commitment included enabling women and girls to lead a just transition to a green economy. I am fully cognisant of the complexity of this, so I really just ask you for an update on progress in that regard. I note the eminent women that you have on your advisory committee, but an update would be appreciated.

Following on from that, will there be a specific measurement outcome that references gender equality? Another approach would be for it to cut through all your outcomes, but will there be specific measures?

I will look forward to following that up. My last question on that subject—I have another question in a different area—is about conditionality. Can you see a set of circumstances in which you would advise the Scottish Government to introduce conditionality in relation to gender parity? It is often hard measures and real financial outcomes that make the difference. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I have a completely different question on financing. Everybody is well aware of the significant challenges in that regard, particularly given that the Scottish Government has a fixed budget. There are even challenges around financing in the private sector, and risk appetites change where there is a shortage of resources.

I am well aware of the challenge that you face, and you have made it clear how ambitious the 2045 target is. However, what are your current reflections on the challenges, specifically to do with how the Scottish Government will be able to finance things or any other areas you see across the piece? Retrofitting might be an example that you will pull out.

I feel that that is a massive area. I will not labour it, because I know that other committee members have questions. Thank you.

I agree with everything that you have said, but my question was: what assessment have you made of the economic barriers that your key stakeholders—employees, employers and the Scottish Government—face? I agree that fair work is enmeshed in economic choices. However, even today, we have talked about sick pay and zero-hours contracts, which, of course, come under employment law. We have not touched much on the issue of the gig economy generally. I am trying to work out what assessment you have made of the economic blockers and barriers.