Chamber and committees

When it comes to breaking all of this down, I am not clear how costs are collected, structurally speaking. For example, what are the set-up costs? Obviously, there will be accommodation costs, and I imagine that the convener’s or chair’s costs will be significant, too, but a significant amount will also be needed to support legal costs. It would be useful to get a sense of the quantum of that money.

Funnily enough, you might have just pre-empted one of my questions. Obviously, none of us has the current figures, but it was suggested last September that the total cost of inquiries thus far was of the order of £200 million. Obviously, that was before the Eljamel inquiry had been agreed, but the child abuse inquiry came to £85 million; the Scottish hospitals inquiry, £19.2 million; the Covid inquiry, £26.1 million; and the Sheku Bayoh inquiry, £20.1 million.

Looking at this from the perspective of the efficiency of public spend, might you be concerned by calls for an increase in scope, such as that from the lawyer involved in the recent Sheku Bayoh inquiry, who might also be a significant beneficiary of the costs associated with any such increased scope? I ask the question because I wonder, within the scope of looking at how efficient these inquiries are, how those costs are being controlled.

Thank you.

Given the leading role of Forth Valley College in the skills transition process, it will be vitally important that the college can assess capacity and ensure that it is in place to deliver on demand and at pace. How is the Scottish Government supporting the college to ensure delivery?

To ask the Scottish Government what role the skills transition centre at Forth Valley College will play in protecting and redeploying the skills base, and providing further training opportunities for a just transition of workers in the Grangemouth chemical cluster. (S6O-04374)

Will the member take an intervention?

I want to pick Lorna Slater up on what she has said about build to rent. I see it very much as a professionalisation of the market. Surely she is not suggesting that she wants to return to a proliferation of a multitude of small landlords.

I hope to be able to cheer us up a little, to be honest. Frankly, I am delighted with the Scottish Government’s motion and its recognition—indeed, its celebration—of the importance of investment and of the value of using the Government’s ability to leverage in private finance. Of course, I completely agree with the priorities.

Increased investment is vital for growth and productivity, but by itself it is not enough. It has to be in a policy setting that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation, for it is those that create new products, services and businesses, leading to increased productivity. Investments will not deliver as much as they could if they are accompanied by disincentives such as the rise in employer national insurance contributions, which acts against growth and productivity.

I add my voice to that of those who express concern that the UK Labour Government is not now able to confirm the previous funding commitment of £8.3 billion for Great British Energy. I hope that that is not going to be another broken UK Labour Government promise. It is vital that we increase confidence among the business community, and it is disappointing that the Economy and Fair Work Committee heard further evidence yesterday of how the UK Labour Government’s tax rise is suppressing it.

Put simply, business investment is much less risk averse than Government investment, with every penny spent by Government scrutinised and every failed project criticised. That is not the case with entrepreneurs and innovators. The role of entrepreneurship cannot be overexaggerated, with businesses being the principal agents of change and growth.

As the late Thomas J Watson, the founder and chief executive officer of IBM, said:

“If you want to increase your success rate, double your failure rate.”

In other words, to drive innovation and business growth, business needs to be able to take appropriate risk. However, for businesses to take those risks to drive growth, there must be policy certainty. I have mentioned several times already this week the need for such certainty to allow for the future work that we all hope for in Grangemouth and the wider area. I am disappointed to hear reports today of further redundancy notices being issued at some of the Ineos companies.

The need for that policy certainty is also backed up by Scottish Renewables, which makes the general point in relation to clean power by 2030, alongside many other points, not least of which are the concerns around zonal pricing affecting investor confidence. It notes the comments of Alistair Phillips-Davies, Scottish and Southern Energy’s CEO, who stated that

“zonal pricing would be a political and economic disaster”.

That language is not usually used by such a senior business figure, and it correctly recognises concerns that are shared not just by the energy industry but by trade unions and major investors such as Sumitomo.

No speech of mine could be complete without my mentioning the role of women-led businesses, and I welcome the leadership that the Scottish Government and, in particular, the Deputy First Minister have shown in that regard. The policy and the money that is made available are a good step forward, but the challenge remains to ensure in particular that women-led businesses are at the heart of our focus as we move towards net zero.

Finally, I will make a few comments about skills. A major issue is the fashion in the UK and in Scotland for the past decades to emphasise competence-based training. That has downplayed the importance of knowledge, but knowledge is the key to new thinking and innovation. We need to benchmark our skills system against the very best internationally, rather than being too concerned with being in harmony with the rest of the UK.

Before everyone else comes in, I go back to the culture point. Do you detect a new sharpness of purpose in the new deal for business? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that is what I mean about the culture: it has a new name, but it is largely the same activity.

That is very helpful. I probably should have added risk appetite to my list, and zonal pricing is very topical.