I must say that you referenced old technology in your submission, but not new technology.

When you say “considerable impact”, do you mean a positive or negative impact?

Frankly, there is a fear of the unknown in many organisations. They think, “We’re going to have to adopt this, but do we have to do it this week?” or, “What’s the implication going to be for the workforce and the whole structure.” I led the first debate on AI in the Parliament, way back in 2018, and the information that we had then about the impact on employment was completely different from the information now. At that time, the sectors that we were told would be most adversely affected and those that would be boosted were completely different from the scenario now. That issue is still being grappled with.

I will move on to capital investments in a couple of minutes, because a few people mentioned that in their written submissions, but a couple of folk want to come in at the moment.

Good morning and welcome to the 25th meeting of the Finance and Public Administration Committee in 2025. The first item on our agenda is evidence from two panels of witnesses on responding to long-term fiscal pressures as part of our pre-budget scrutiny for 2026-27. Our first evidence-taking session is a round-table discussion.

I welcome Andy Witty, director of strategic policy and corporate governance at Colleges Scotland; Stacey Dingwall, head of policy and external affairs for Scotland at the Federation of Small Businesses; Elaine Morrison, director of boosting capital investment at Scottish Enterprise; Tom Ockendon, external affairs co-ordinator at the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations; and Lesley Jackson, deputy director of Universities Scotland. Thank you all for your written submissions.

We have around 90 minutes for this evidence session. I will kick off by putting a question to Andy Witty. If anyone wants to come in on the back of that, let me know: put your hand up or nod as if you are at an auction—you will not end up buying any candlesticks or obscure paintings, so do not worry. Let me know if you want to come in, and we will have as free flowing a discussion as possible.

If we get stuck at any point, I have questions arising from each of your papers, which I might come in on—and I might come in on those anyway to move things forward. Please feel free to say whatever you wish, when you wish, and to make as many contributions as possible. It is the same for members.

Andy Witty, at the very start of the Colleges Scotland submission, on the subject of specific fiscal sustainability challenges, you wrote:

“it is vital that Scotland maximises the participation and contribution of its population … Gaining the participation in the labour market of those who are currently not in work, education or training, and with support for people who face barriers to work such as neurodiversity or disability”.

You went on to say that it is important to

“Ensure access to appropriate training, qualifications and upskilling which are aligned to Scotland’s economic needs.”

Could you expand on that for us, please? Where does Colleges Scotland fit in with that objective?

Lesley, you will have heard what John Mason said, but I note that your submission says that

“86% of new jobs in Scotland by 2035 will be at graduate level”,

which I found really astonishing, given that, as we have just heard, we need welders, plumbers, bricklayers and people to work in retail and hospitality and God knows where else. Surely that 86 per cent figure cannae be right.

The part of your submission that I started on was how to incentivise employers to recruit, retain and retrain older workers. How do you get them to do that and change their mindset?

I have a wee anecdote from when I was in Glasgow City Council: the council used to win all the training awards for the best construction workers; the private businesses would hoover them all up at the end of the training course and the council would be left with the others, so to speak. That was way back in the 1990s.

I am sorry; I thought that you wanted to come in on the back of John Mason’s question.

I want to move on to the issue of capital. We are about an hour in, we have another half hour to go, and I want to move on if we can. Everybody will have an opportunity to sum up at the end of the meeting. So, if we have missed anything or you feel we have not covered something, we can touch on it then.

Elaine Morrison, in your submission, you state that

“A low level of capital to support workers is a key cause of the UK’s relatively low labour productivity”,

and you go on to say that

“it would take almost a century to catch up with the capital intensity of higher productivity peer countries”.

That is quite a depressing prospect. You also say that it would take that long

“Even if the UK was able to increase its investment rate by about 4%-points”.

You go on to say:

“The UK has firm-level barriers including risk-aversion, investment constraints and cultural issues”.

What are those constraints, and how do we overcome them?

No, I am asking what you think the Scottish Government should do with the resources that it has. I am not asking—

I was going to come to you next anyway, Stacey, because you wanted to come in anyway—you can come in on whatever you wish. You said that you are keen to see an increased share of public contracts being awarded to small local firms. Your submission says that you have found that

“while some barriers had been removed following the introduction of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, others persisted.”

What are those barriers?