Seòmar agus comataidhean

I certainly hope that we always consider ways in which to encourage people who are currently inactive and have the potential to re-enter the labour market to do so. Although I cannot speak to any specific strands of work with regard to targeting particular groups, we all hope that that would be an outcome of the approach and that some of the jobs that are created through the initiatives will create opportunities for people to re-enter the labour market and bring their skills to bear on an exciting set of industries.

The decisions that were taken on investment zones were a product of engagement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. With regard to the decision-making process and criteria, while I seek to provide as much information as possible to the committee, I sincerely apologise: as I am not the lead minister in that area and it does not relate specifically to green freeports, I am not in a position to respond fully. However, I recognise the member’s interests as a committee member and as a regional representative, and I would be happy to respond in writing.

As you will appreciate, procurement is distinct. It is a devolved competency, but we have to operate within broader frameworks at UK and World Trade Organization level. It is distinct from employment law. I recognise that we have made significant progress on procurement over the past 17 years since the McClelland review. We published an independent report at the start of the year highlighting the benefits from the journey that we have been on with sustainable procurement. I recognise that there is much more that we can do in that space, and the issue was raised in the recently closed consultation on community wealth-building legislation. The analysis of that will be published later in the autumn. I highlight that in relation to the topical matter of procurement.

Where we can take action, we will, and when we are challenged to go further within devolved competencies, we will seek to do so.

There is a distinction between procurement, grants and property taxes—that is the important point. There is a distinction between what they are and how they are administered and what is possible. There are also issues with the measures in the programme that is being developed in relation to parity with what is available elsewhere in the UK.

On having responsibility for devolved taxes and non-domestic rates, I am keen to reflect on how we can use those levers and work in partnership with trade unions and businesses to incentivise fair work, but we have to make sure that, in considering that, we do not conflate it with distinct areas of policy such as procurement or giving grants.

We operate in a UK context, and we seek to engage constructively with the UK Government. The freeport model was brought forward by the UK Government, if I recall correctly, following the general election in 2019. We have sought to listen to the voices of business and other partners, including trade unions, and to engage constructively in development of the proposals.

We are now in a position in which we have managed to come to a joint approach with shared decision making. That reflects the fact that we have sought to engage constructively. If we continue to work in a constructive manner with the UK Government and the green freeport operators, we can seek to harness the opportunity to deliver positive economic outcomes for the green freeport sites and the wider Scottish economy, including by strengthening key strategic industries.

That is a very important point and I recognise that various Administrations—at devolved level, at local government level, at UK level and at international level—will be engaging with the issue. In the private sector, various organisations will be assessing their commitments on sustainability and attempting to find a stable definition of green jobs. Clearly, as tackling the climate emergency has, in recent years, moved to the top of the political agenda domestically and internationally, there has been an evolution in some of the language that is used.

For example, in work that was published in March, the Office for National Statistics defined a green job as

“Employment in an activity that contributes to protecting or restoring the environment, including those that mitigate or adapt to climate change.”

That definition is sufficiently broad to encompass a range of green jobs, including those related to decarbonisation and net zero. It is anticipated that the ONS will, in the next few months, publish estimates of green jobs in the UK.

Other work has been done in this area. The green jobs fund, which the Government launched in 2021, uses the definition of

“Jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.”

In addition, the climate emergency skills action plan from December 2020 states that green jobs include those in

“renewable energy, circular economy and zero waste ... and the nature based sector with wider ‘green skills’ sitting on a spectrum ranging from highly specific requirements in sectors directly supporting the transition to net zero such as energy, transport, construction, agriculture, and manufacturing, through to more generic requirements across all sectors to thrive in a net zero economy”.

I recognise that that definition is broad and all-encompassing, which might, understandably, prompt questions about where one draws the line. However, it speaks to the point that net zero is not something that we do specifically; it runs through all aspects of the economy.

As outline business cases are developed and we monitor and evaluate the progress that is made through the green freeport model, there will be further refinement and greater understanding of what we mean by a green job. I hope that, as an opener, what I have said helps to set the scene and shows some of the developing thinking in Scotland and elsewhere.

The question of displacement is key and it is an active part of our consideration with regard to engagement with the individual green freeport sites and the overall process. It will also be a key concern for local government as partners. The risk of displacement comes with transferring jobs from one part of the country to another, of course, but with this model we are trying to create new high-quality jobs—jobs that respond very specifically to the assets and strengths of particular areas. We can recognise where there are similarities but also where there are distinct differences between each of the green freeport sites.

I come back to the discussion that took place at the committee’s meeting last week, to recognise that the model that was referred to, which goes back to the 1980s, is in many respects from a different era. It is important to learn lessons and to recognise the possible risks of seeking to incentivise development in one part of the country. It is also important, though, to recognise that we are in a different era and that some issues that were pertinent in the 1980s and early 1990s are not so now—or not to the same degree. The current labour market is different and we also have a different focus, which is on the primacy of tackling the climate emergency and on decarbonisation.

I also come back to the key point on displacement, which is that our policy is about creating new, high-quality jobs as opposed to moving jobs from one part of the country to another.

It could create challenges, but in designing the reliefs we have sought to incentivise new developments. The reliefs that the committee is considering today specifically concern LBTT. The policy affects land that is either undeveloped or underdeveloped—that is, land that would perhaps not see any development were it not for such intervention. It concerns a reserved area, but the employer national insurance contributions for new jobs that are created will help to mitigate the risk of jobs being transferred from one part of the country to another.

I am ambitious, in the sense that I hope that if there is any displacement it will not be from other parts of Scotland and that people from other parts of the UK and the world will be attracted by those high-quality jobs and so will come to work in Scotland. Speaking as the minister with responsibility for public finance, such highly paid jobs will help to generate revenue to support our public services. There is a real opportunity for us in cutting-edge industries, in which we have comparative advantages and where we can be world leaders, to attract people from outwith Scotland and from other parts of the UK and beyond. I certainly hope that that has happened.

Where we have been able to take action on the shaping of the tax policy—for example, on LBTT—that has been done to incentivise development that would otherwise not take place.

Of course. The convener alluded to the ambitions on job creation at both sites. If those are realised and provide high-quality and high-paying jobs, it follows that there would be a significant return on investment relative to LBTT exemptions, for example.

I have spoken previously about one of the key aspects being consistency with the SDLT arrangements elsewhere in the UK. However, ultimately, the benefit that is going to be conferred is development. I apologise for labouring this point, but it is development that would otherwise not have taken place. It is not as if there is potential competitive advantage for one particular model of company over another, or the potential of alternative development taking place on the site. It is about whether development takes place or not, or whether it takes place to its full potential. That is the rationale that underpins the relief in relation to underdeveloped or undeveloped land.

That aspect focuses on the fact that the relief will be accessible only if development takes place. If there is a transaction and a commitment to development, but such development does not take place within three years, the relief will be withdrawn. There has to be development. The second aspect is the broader parity that we have sought with regard to the arrangements elsewhere in the UK. Laura Duffy might want to comment on where we have sought parity on the arrangements for freeports and where we have diverged.