Seòmar agus comataidhean

In some respects, I appreciate that I was being unfair in asking that, but, on legislators’ understanding of the transition, you have correctly identified that interim moves could be claimed to be greenwashing. A classic example is to say that zero waste is going to landfill, when 50 per cent might be incinerated and ultimately end up in landfill. You have correctly highlighted some of the transitional points that businesses might go through in scoping out the various options.

My final question is this: how would you help legislators to understand the transitional steps from your perspective, and the complexity that you have highlighted? John Ferguson did not have a chance to answer the previous question, so do you want to come in here?

I draw the attention of the panel to the fact that I am an ambassador of the all-party parliamentary group for fair business banking, which took part in the bankers for net zero work that has been mentioned.

Some say that there is a paradox between the endless drive for profit and the drive to reach net zero. Arguably, that is nowhere more evident than in our financial system. I want to ask the bankers, first of all, about the banks reaching net zero. Have your pension schemes set targets for when they will reach net zero and do you measure that? I see that Fraser Sime is nodding, so I ask him to respond first, then Simon Crichton.

Following on from that, I have a couple more questions for Fraser Sime and Simon Crichton before I bring David Ovens in on a general question. How, specifically, have your banks changed their measures—the balanced-business scorecard or whatever—in order to put net zero and not just profit at the top?

For my last question—I am aware that I need to leave time for other members to get in—I would like to bring in David Ovens. It is about risk appetite generally. Do you perceive that sustainable businesses are treated differently from a risk perspective, given that they are often new, innovative and smaller? What is your perception of risk appetite across the finance sector?

In that respect, I was surprised to see that the Bank of Scotland, or Lloyds Group, had not participated in bankers for net zero, given that that initiative will be presented at COP26. What was the thinking on that? I note that Handelsbanken and Triodos are in it, as is Barclays, which is one of the very large banks. What was the rationale for your not participating?

I want to quickly bring in Simon Crichton on the question that I asked about how, specifically, his bank has changed its measures to ensure that net zero is on or near the top, alongside profit, given the paradox that I described earlier.

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?

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?