Seòmar agus comataidhean

Colin Smyth has highlighted very well one of the examples of powers that are reserved and not part of the devolved settlement. I will pick into another one. Helen Martin made the point, and I am worried about it as well, that the use of zero-hours contracts is significantly up from 2016. I would like to hear why that is. Why are zero-hours contracts a problem and what can be done? It would be useful to know what can be done in a devolved sense, because we are here to hold the Scottish Government to account, but it is often sometimes useful to know what is reserved.

That highlights clearly the frustration in relation to how, even if we are not arguing about quantums, communication—especially between the two Governments—about what might come years down the line could be improved.

For my second question, I will pick up on what Douglas Colquhoun said about evidencing the impact. A couple of weeks ago, I put this question to South of Scotland Enterprise and Highlands and Island Enterprise. You give out direct support in loans, grants and so on, but how do you measure the impact of your indirect support? How do you evidence teaching someone to fish versus giving someone fish?

I got different answers from the two enterprise agencies: South of Scotland Enterprise said that it was in the process of delivering those metrics, and Highlands and Islands Enterprise was less clear on how it showed the most effective intervention on the economy. As great as it feels to give out money, is that the most effective intervention, or are those other things equally effective? I am interested to hear your views.

I have three questions. My first is for both organisations. Both of your business models depend very heavily—at the moment, anyway—on Government decisions year by year. Every time I speak to an organisation, there is frustration about not having foresight, as there is no multiyear funding, which means that they do not know what is coming. I am interested in your view of the current system, which means that your organisations are dependent on the capital budget that comes from the UK Government. How does it affect you that you do not know year to year how much money you will have? I am interested to hear from both of you, but particularly from SNIB, on how plans to make the bank stand alone commercially—as in, that future profits would not be rolled back into the Scottish Government budget—would help to delink the current process? Scottish Enterprise may not have the same options.

Can I ask a very quick question, convener?

It will be super quick. The next question is for the investment bank. My understanding is that the bank can loan a minimum of £1 million. What progress is there towards developing financial instruments that could be used to support smaller businesses and projects that do not need as much as £1 million?

That highlights clearly the frustration in relation to how, even if we are not arguing about quantums, communication—especially between the two Governments—about what might come years down the line could be improved.

For my second question, I will pick up on what Douglas Colquhoun said about evidencing the impact. A couple of weeks ago, I put this question to South of Scotland Enterprise and Highlands and Island Enterprise. You give out direct support in loans, grants and so on, but how do you measure the impact of your indirect support? How do you evidence teaching someone to fish versus giving someone fish?

I got different answers from the two enterprise agencies: South of Scotland Enterprise said that it was in the process of delivering those metrics, and Highlands and Islands Enterprise was less clear on how it showed the most effective intervention on the economy. As great as it feels to give out money, is that the most effective intervention, or are those other things equally effective? I am interested to hear your views.

I have two questions, the second one of which has come up. I will get into them.

Professor Roy, I am delighted that you highlighted the cost of not taking action, because the question “Who is going to pay for it?” frustrates me continually. Who is going to pay for it, if we do not? That would be much worse.

Professor Bell, you brought to our attention the fact that some of the changes that we need to make will not cost the public purse. I agree: not all the transformative policies that we need necessarily need to cost the public purse money.

I worry that, in this larger debate, there is a sometimes a tone of, “Oh, it is just too expensive. We can’t do it. Net zero is too expensive.” However, policies such as removing subsidies from aviation, giving farmers the same amount of money for doing slightly different things, demanding management charges such as congestion charges and workplace parking levies, having a carbon land tax and putting in regulation on heat pumps and insulation to level the playing field do not cost the Government anything. However, we have such difficulty moving those things forward.

Do either of you—perhaps Professor Roy—have any comment on what kind of political consensus we need? What is the difficulty in moving forward with those policies, even though they do not actually cost the public purse anything?

Does Professor Bell have any thoughts on that question?

My follow-on question is along those lines. I will pick up from where my colleague Michelle Thomson left off, around the question of how we get there. For me, the bigger question is about knowing where we are going. We know that we are not going to get to the 2030 targets, but we must get to 2045 and I do not think that there is political consensus about what 2045 will look like. To me, it is less about how we get there than about what we are trying to get to. Have we agreed on what transportation will look like in 2045? Do we know what all our buildings will look like? Do we know what our industry, our agriculture and our land use will look like? Can we agree on where we are trying to get to?

The question about clarity is relevant. I do not think that there has been clarity about which industries will have to contract. We hear a lot about growth, but not all industries can grow. Aviation cannot grow; other high-carbon industries cannot grow; they must contract. We need some clarity and honesty about saying that a transition means that some industries will contract and some industries will grow. Equally, some regions of Scotland might not grow, or they might contract, while other regions will grow.

I am interested in your commentary on both those points. How do we get a vision of where we are going? Do you feel that there is such a vision, or do we need to develop that? Is the information out there about what needs to grow and what needs to contract? If it is out there, how do we make sure that it is getting the clarity and presentation it needs?

Professor Roy, does that feed through into the work that you do for the Scottish Government in terms of saying, “We know that these industries must contract and that these regions of Scotland will not be able to grow but that other regions will?” Does that feed through?