Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Bank of Scotland and PWC would disagree with you. Both of them have referenced Scotland as leading the way in the creation of green jobs. In the UK, the greatest opportunities in the green economy are already here in Scotland. That is not wishful thinking for the future; that is in the present.

Our commitment, which comes through loudly and clearly in the strategy, is to a just transition. Great economic opportunities are emerging. I have already referred to some of them, such as ScotWind. We must do that transition fairly. We have moved a significant distance on conditionality, with a commitment to embedding conditionality by this summer. We also recognised the importance of sectoral agreement and of trade union recognition. Those points will ensure that the transition, and the significant economic opportunities, are underpinned by a fair-work approach.

Adam Reid may want to come in on the subject of fair work.

It is good to reference that growth in productivity over the past 10 years in particular.

Productivity is an issue with which a lot of developed countries are grappling just now. In the strategy—there is more analysis in the analytics paper—we identify a mixture of business investment and the need to improve business productivity. That mixture includes specific investment opportunities. It also includes increased digitalisation. We know that more businesses have access to, for example, superfast broadband than use it to its full extent.

Alongside business investment and digitalisation, we need to address workforce matters. We need to ensure that our workers have the skills that they need to be as productive as possible.

Quite clearly, productivity is one of the most important metrics for not just improved economic performance but wellbeing, because it drives up wages, improves work-life balance and, ultimately, positions Scotland internationally. That is on the private sector side.

On the public sector side, we have a role when it comes to improving infrastructure. We have set out the second strategic transport projects review, which is under consultation just now, to ensure that we are investing in the right infrastructure to improve productivity. That is my quick summary of what we are talking about.

There is one other part to our actions that I am hugely supportive of, which is the notion that it is not a mark of success to improve national productivity while leaving parts of the country behind. We must identify the building blocks and try to work with every region in Scotland to improve regional productivity, which will contribute to national productivity. There is a big focus on not forgetting any part of the country or leaving any part behind. In terms of the measurement, some regions are coming across as more productive right now, which is due to the skills and industry mix. We need to work with those parts of the country that need additional Government investment and support for business.

I quoted two independent analysts.

The STUC makes a significant contribution on this issue, and I know that it is interested in helping us with delivery. On the launch morning, there were at least two representatives from unions, including one from Unite, who specifically said how pleased they were to see fair work built into so much of the strategy’s work.

The programmes of action that we have chosen are based on evidence, but we recognise that economic growth and prosperity have a purpose, which is to ensure that we have a fairer and more equal society.

Some of the initiatives in the strategy are pretty pioneering from a Scottish perspective, not least building conditionality into support for business, ensuring that we focus on underrepresented groups and ensuring greater payment of the real living wage across our economy. Those are all in line with the STUC’s requirements. We are committed to developing sectoral fair work agreements with industry and to working with trade unions.

There is a lot in the strategy that will deliver what the STUC and others have looked for regarding fair work and greater equality.

Those are great questions. On your first point, one of the actions is to develop a wellbeing economy monitor. That will bring in measurements of, for example, healthy life expectancy, fair work indicators, mental wellbeing, child poverty, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity. It goes back to a previous question to which I responded. The measurements are key, so what we measure really matters. We are one of the founding Governments of the wellbeing economy Governments initiative, working with countries such as New Zealand to improve our measurement of wellbeing, because we talk about trying to build a wellbeing economy but the measurement of it is really important.

Some elements of that will align with other metrics that we already work to. We have metrics in place around biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions—obviously—and child poverty. The point is to ensure that economic activity is certainly not undermining efforts on those issues but, more than that, is contributing to addressing them.

On your second point, about care, as you say, the strategy is a fairly short document. We could have taken the approach, which might have been quite popular, of listing everything that we think people would like to see name checked. However, there is reference to the importance of care in achieving all our economic aims.

It is an economic strategy, not a care strategy. However, going back to my favourite subject of entrepreneurship and the fact that certain groups are still underrepresented, the strategy specifically says that, in order to provide those underrepresented groups with more exposure to entrepreneurship and mentorship and more encouragement and support to build businesses and so on, we need to understand what is stopping them.

Let us take women as an example. Obviously, it is not just women who have caring responsibilities, by any means, but supporting women to be entrepreneurs probably means providing enhanced wraparound care support. Where individuals have caring responsibilities, how do we ensure that there is wraparound support to help them with those responsibilities? The strategy identifies the fact that, if we are serious about supporting those with caring responsibilities in either a paid or unpaid capacity, we need to do more as a Government to provide that wraparound care.

That sits alongside a lot of other things that are going on, such as the establishment of the national care service and improving terms and conditions and pay for our carers, but that is where it is referenced in the strategy.

That is a critical question, and it goes back to two points. One is that we are halfway through our resource spending review and setting out multiyear budgets. The strategy acknowledges and reflects the fact that we need multiyear budgeting for the approach to be successful. That is the bottom line. The resource spending review is due to be published in the coming months, and it will set out a medium-term trajectory on spending. However, on opportunities, we absolutely have to leverage in private sector funding in new markets. There is no question about that. It is well documented that, for example, the gap between what we need to achieve to meet net zero and what we have funding to be able to do is significant.

The bottom line is that the funding exists. As part of the Global Fund Advocates Network initiative, $130 trillion of assets under management right now that need to find a home have been identified. Either that money will find a home in Scotland or it will find a home elsewhere. I want it to find a home in Scotland, but, for it to find a home in Scotland, we need two things. First, we need to be clear about the green prospectus. We have built the £3 billion green prospectus, which we used extensively at the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26. We need to expand on that and bring in more initiatives so that investors can easily find opportunities. Those opportunities also need to align with our values—that is an important point.

The second thing relates to the supply chain. We face a choice. As part of the up to 25GW of offshore wind energy that might be developed over the next 10 years, we will create jobs outwith Scotland or in Scotland. The way to create jobs in Scotland is for businesses to be established, to grow and to identify and take a larger share of that market. I refer you to project 5 under “New Market Opportunities”, which explicitly says:

“Build on Scotland’s Strengths to Win an Ever Greater Share of Domestic and International Market Opportunities”.

That is the action that hits the nail on the head, and I do not want to miss that opportunity.

The delivery plans will definitely flesh out the strategy, and as we have already said, we will make sure that there are clear metrics in those. We have set out, at high level, what we think the contribution to the Scottish economy will be over the next 10 years, but as Gary Gillespie said a few moments ago, some areas are, by their nature, more difficult to measure and define, particularly the opportunities that come with new markets. We are still at an early stage in relation to that. In other words, some things are easier to model than others. There is certainly a graph in the 133-page analytics paper of the overall contribution to the Scottish economy.

Some areas are easier to define than others. For example, when it comes to our export strategy, we will know what success looks like and, when it comes to fair work, success will be building in conditionality. Some things are easier to quantify and others are more challenging, and we will set out the metrics in the implementation strategy.

I think that the chance is slim, but it is worth trying. To go back a year or so to Mark Logan’s review of the opportunities for the tech industry in Scotland, as an independent individual—not a politician—he set out clearly the need, for example, to have a tech visa. In my conversations with them, many industries talk about the need for industry-specific visas. That is not something that I can grant but, in the engagement with the UK Government, there has been no appetite or willingness to consider sector-specific visa arrangements for the tech industry, for example.

Thus far, I do not think that there has been much progress, if any. Even in industries where the issue is UK wide, we have not seen huge progress and, right now, the current discourse around refugees and migration suggests that we have a long way to go before making progress.

It is quite a stretch to suggest that I am blaming the private sector; that is a quite remarkable misrepresentation of my remarks.

I am not saying that delivery has not been a focus. In response to Jamie Halcro Johnston’s and the convener’s questions about what is new, I said that our evidence suggests that we understand what the challenges are but that the issue now is that we should focus ruthlessly over a 10-year period on delivering what we know to be the solutions to those challenges. As I said, that is not going to grab any headlines, but we know what we need to do, and we need to persevere in delivering that.

New opportunities have also emerged—not least in Alexander Burnett’s part of the country—so the issue now is to ensure that we deliver on the supply chain that exists but needs to expand to meet Scotland’s opportunities. Clearly, the supply chain is where we need to work with the private sector to maximise opportunities.

The economic inactivity figures are well documented in the analytics paper. The most common reason that is cited for economic inactivity in Scotland is temporary or long-term health problems. We also have big contingents who are in full-time study and who have caring responsibilities. “Economic inactivity” is a catch-all term, so getting underneath that and understanding how we encourage those who can work into work is important. The commitment in the strategy is to remove more of the barriers and to simplify the employability system by implementing the “no one left behind” strategy.

It is important to say that the people who are furthest from the job market will require greater and more intensive investment to bring them closer to it. That is a commitment that we are willing to make, but it requires significant up-front investment and willingness to work intensively with individuals. We have set out that commitment—we need to do it.

The earlier question about the need to access skills demonstrates that we need to support into work as many people as possible, but we also need to understand what is preventing people from working. For some, it is the caring responsibilities that I mentioned in my earlier answer to Maggie Chapman. For others, it is full time study, which is good, and for others it is ill health. Given all that, there is quite a small group of people whom we need to work with to encourage them into work and to provide them with the support that they need.