Chamber and committees

They were long questions and I ran them together. I merely expressed a view that international benchmarking could be desirable, particularly thinking about Nora Senior’s comment about digital technologies and the threat of competition from digital technologies. We might choose not to benchmark internationally across every sector, but we have already discussed doing that in the emerging sectors. I just wanted to see whether, in principle, you agree with the view that international benchmarking is a good thing.

Nora, I will pick up on Lisa Pattoni’s comment that employers drive the take-up of modern apprenticeships and that they therefore have a role in the figures that I outlined for female enrolments. We both encounter systemic issues in relation to the role of women in business and various other sectors; do you have any final reflections on that point before we move on?

You are on silent, Nora.

I invite SDS to respond my last question, which I appreciate was a slightly cheeky one. I wanted to wind up the session with a bit of fun.

Chris, you are on silent.

I welcome the programme for government outlined by the First Minister and, in particular, the actions to ensure that Scotland has the opportunity to become a modern, normal, independent nation as soon as conditions allow. Fundamentally, it is about having the freedom to make policy choices based on the needs of the Scottish people. There are huge opportunities to be grasped. I will focus on how best to support the Government’s ambitions in two areas: investment in transitioning to a green economy and the need to overcome barriers to progress.

The commitment to transitioning to a net zero economy is very welcome and hugely ambitious, but the Government cannot do that alone. Businesses must change what they do and massively increase investment. According to October 2019 data from the World Bank, significant investment in infrastructure for the next 15 years alone will be required, costing about $90 trillion by 2030.

We cannot move away from our reliance on fossil fuels by simply stopping the use of fossil fuels. We need to invest heavily in new businesses, such as those that are built around hydrogen technologies. Bringing to reality the power-to-X concept, which I recently discussed with lead researchers at the University of St Andrews, is a case in point, and it is particularly important for my Falkirk East constituency, which includes Grangemouth.

The United Nations has claimed that, if our investment patterns do not change, we are on course for a 3.5°C rise in global temperatures, which will be devastating for our planet. It points to, for example, the need for pension funds and investors to move quickly and at scale to decarbonise their portfolios. For us, that must include consideration of how we leverage pension investments in support of the Government’s ambitions.

Where better to start than at home? Back in April, I was disappointed to read in Business Insider that our parliamentary pension fund had not, at that time, fully divested itself of fossil fuel investments. Having looked at the 32 Scottish local authority pension funds, I note that almost £50 billion in total is currently being invested by 11 regional funds. Strathclyde Pension Fund and Lothian Pension Fund are the largest and most developed in terms of climate investment practice.

All funds acknowledge the need to address net zero ambitions to some degree. There is, however, some distance to travel, so I was pleased to note in the Scottish Government’s response to the just transition commission that it plans to develop guidelines for voluntary disclosure. My personal view is that that should be required as soon as possible, given the issues with comply or explain reporting, which is more often explained in terms of corporate governance.

There is however two-fold good news. First, internationally, the World Bank among others has identified that transitioning to a green economy can unlock new economic opportunities and jobs. The bank claims that an investment of £1 is likely on average to yield £4 in benefits. Secondly, because of Scotland’s existing progress with renewable energy and our other natural advantages, we are ideally placed to exploit the new opportunities that will create many more jobs in the future.

Economically, however, all is not sweetness and light, thanks to the current UK Government. As we look towards the future, we find that a toxic combination of Brexit and the Internal Market Act 2020 creates barriers to progress. As recent research by the Fraser of Allander Institute and others has pointed out in relation to the 2020 act,

“The effect is to circumvent not only the Barnett Formula but the devolved governments themselves.”

Part of the UK Government’s response to Brexit has been to set up funds that are aimed at addressing lost EU structural funds, but whereas our Scottish Government was in the past able to assess needs and set appropriate priorities, the UK Government’s replacement funds currently bypass the Scottish Government and set up a competitive bidding process for local authorities. What is interesting is that the lead department managing that competition will be England’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

I wonder whether what Liz Smith meant by her earlier comment about good news was that it will not be an English minister bypassing our elected Scottish Parliament?

Liz Smith declines to intervene. That speaks volumes.

I am not aware that such a ministry has any expertise to assess Scottish needs. The lesson here must be that until we achieve Scottish independence, we will always be at the mercy of the whims of a Tory Government in Westminster that fundamentally does not have Scotland’s interests at heart.

The member who opened for the Tories declined my opportunity to deny that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for England would lead the overruling of the democratic Scottish Parliament in assigning structural funds. Perhaps Mr Fraser might want to deny that, instead.

I want to start by asking you a closed question, to which you can answer yes or no, before I go into the main thrust of my questions. Do you routinely disaggregate the data in your surveys, including those that you carry out and those that you have commissioned, by sex/gender?

I can see a yes from Laura Mahon and a nod from Polly Tolley.

That just leaves Adam Stachura—he seems to be saying yes.

I have realised that it is not always best to ask closed questions, so I will move on to an open one. When I was preparing for this session and rereading the questions that you were asked to answer in making a written submission, the question that jumped out at me was:

“How should the Scottish Government’s Budget address the different impacts of the pandemic across age, income and education groups and across places?”

I was surprised that the question did not include sex or gender, although some of the submissions that we received, such as those from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and the Women’s Budget Group pointed that out and included evidence on the issue.

I thank you very much for all the data that you have supplied to us, but would you like to make any additional reflections on the particular impact of the pandemic on women and/or girls? I suspect that Polly Tolley will want to do that. Also, do you know of any costed policy initiatives that could have benefits for women or girls?

I can see some note taking happening. I think that John Dickie wants to go first.

I hope to hear from our other three witnesses on that.

I am conscious of the time, but could I please have the last few comments from the other two panellists, if they wish to contribute to this thread?

I take it from that that you, on behalf of your members and your member organisations, will be reflecting on that matter, given the often long-term nature of property.

Given that diversity makes an economic contribution, what are the SPF’s reflections on supporting women to lead the businesses that it represents?