Chamber and committees

I think in that case, it falls to me to engender a little cynicism in the discussion.

We could probably all agree that true sustainability is underpinned by a golden ethical thread, if you like. I suspect that all of you on the panel, as exemplars, will privately be aware of companies that are, frankly, taking advantage of consumer demand for the changes that we all want—the so-called greenwashing. I would appreciate some examples from your SME level—obviously do not name any businesses—of what you would consider to be greenwashing.

It strikes me that government—I am talking about all government across the piece—might choose to engage with larger more established businesses, because that is often where its channels are. However, a lot of the change in the sector is coming from businesses such as yours, which experience very rapid growth and are more fleet of foot. Does that cause a disconnect, in general terms?

Let us have the last words from Michael Cusack and Paul O’Keeffe, who has not had a chance to comment on this topic.

Are you reporting against those measures annually or every three years? Is that just set as an ambition?

As the much-respected Centre on Constitutional Change at the University of Edinburgh has made abundantly clear, the referral of the bills to the Supreme Court by the UK law officers was as much a political decision as a legal one. They were under no duty to refer. Their decision was political.

The effect of the ruling on the UNCRC bill is to deny a range of rights to Scottish children. Although the Scottish Government may now reluctantly seek to amend the legislation to make it compliant, can the cabinet secretary confirm that every effort will be made to ensure that the children of Scotland do not lose out due to the political actions of the UK Government?

The presidency of the United Nations Security Council is currently held by Ireland. Four of the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council have populations smaller than Scotland’s, as have 77 member countries of the United Nations. Small and medium-sized countries matter on the global stage—in particular, when it comes to leading progressive and humanitarian values rather than parading military might, so I very much welcome the Government’s motion.

In this modern but troubled world, Scotland needs to find her own voice. We also need to give voice to those who are most in need but are too often not heard, so I am particularly pleased to see the programme for government’s emphasis on women and girls. Whether it be to address state-sponsored violence against women and girls in the likes of Afghanistan or the responsibility that is placed on mothers to rebuild families and communities in many parts of our conflict-ridden world, it is right that women and girls be supported and placed centre stage.

Simon Coveney, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs said recently that

“When women participate fully and equally in peace processes, those peace processes last.”

I therefore also welcome the £500,000 fund for local organisations in international development partner countries to take forward work to ensure that women and girls are safe, equal and respected.

The motion also condemns the UK Government’s cut in the aid budget from 0.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent of gross national income. I agree, but I would go further, because in reality it is much worse than a cut to 0.5 per cent. We now know that the Treasury plans to use accounting tricks in this month’s spending review to squeeze the aid budget by yet more billions of pounds.

The BBC reports that charities that operate on the front line have already condemned such moves. Romilly Greenhill, the UK director of ONE, the global campaign against poverty, has said that

“It’s incredibly worrying that UK aid looks set to be cut again, through accounting trickery by the Treasury.

The chancellor looks set to count the sharing of surplus vaccine doses, a new injection of cost-free foreign exchange reserves and the cancellation of debts that haven’t been repaid for decades as part of the aid budget.”

In effect, the UK Government plans to commit considerably less than 0.5 per cent of GNI to foreign aid. While it is shackled to this declining UK state, Scotland’s options are regrettably limited.

There is much to be welcomed in the Scottish Government’s approach, including the expansion of our residential fellowship programme to train women to take on leadership roles in mitigating the effect of climate change, for example.

Until Scotland becomes independent and takes her own seat at the United Nations, a frankly mean-spirited UK will constrain our actions and influence. One thing that we can all do is use our voice to speak up on behalf of those who are most in need in this troubled world. That is what I intend to continue to do.

The point that I am trying to make is that, given the on-going dispute about no detriment, if the Scottish Government were to discover more crime—even if it were able to, which it is not, in many areas—it would not get the benefit of increased proceeds-of-crime funding, because it would all be offset in the overall budget. Is my understanding correct?

I will pick up on what Ross Greer said about tax avoidance. The issue is not only tax avoidance; it also involves unintended consequences. We know that there are issues around mini umbrella companies, which we have seen in relation to the pandemic. We also know that there are huge issues with Scottish limited partnerships being used for money laundering. My understanding is that none of those reside under anything that would enable the Scottish Government to do anything about them, even though, clearly, from an international perspective, our international brand as a place to do business is affected if people can freely use very loose arrangements such as Scottish limited partnerships.

Can you confirm that my understanding is correct? Can you also say whether there might be other vehicles, even in the form of soft powers, that could be used in relation to things such as Scottish limited partnerships? The Law Society of Scotland has a view on that.

I appreciate that this is straying into justice areas, so you might wish to decline to answer the question. However, it would be useful if you could give us a sense of your thinking.

My last question is about the difference between accountability and responsibility. The Scottish Government is accountable for many of the outcomes in the national performance framework, which is very outcome-driven. Our discussion today has been about the areas where the Scottish Government has responsibility, or those where it has no responsibility, despite having accountability for a range of areas.

There is also the reverse situation in which the UK Government is accountable for many areas but is not subject to scrutiny by the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament.

If you were to have a choice about the areas in which responsibility was aligned with accountability, which top three areas would you pick, given the considerable short and long-term economic challenges that we have explored today? Which three things would you like to place on record?

I will follow on from the theme of tax avoidance that Ross Greer highlighted.

I understand that there is a historical dispute going back to devolution of further powers in relation to proceeds of crime and £30 million that it was originally assumed would remain with the Scottish Government but which the UK Government now assumes will go back to it. Is that still the case, and can you give us any insight into the discussions that you are having with the UK Government on the matter? Can you also confirm that, if you moved resources from Police Scotland into dealing with more financial crime, none of the benefit of such a move would accrue to the Scottish Government budget?