Chamber and committees

Will we see a scale-back in direct investment for businesses from the agencies?

It is widely recognised that we are in a recession. The Deputy First Minister said that, despite the fall in the level of labour inactivity, we could be at a labour market turning point as we are seeing vacancies fall and redundancies rise. However, in addition to the funding cut to VisitScotland, as highlighted by Fiona Hyslop, the enterprise agencies will also have their overall funding cut. Scottish Enterprise will have 4.9 per cent cut in real terms; 5.5 per cent will be cut from Highlands and Islands Enterprise; and South of Scotland Enterprise will have a 9.7 per cent cut, which continues a longer-term trend. What are the reasons for those cuts? What assessment have you made of how they will impact support for businesses?

I have a brief question on business rates, Deputy First Minister. Last year, the approach to reliefs was recognised as being less generous than that in England and Wales. This year, the Fraser of Allander Institute, in its budget response, stated:

“This year, John Swinney has seemingly taken an even more hardline approach and there are no additional reliefs applied to hospitality and retail as is the case south of the border.”

Given the real pressures on those sectors, which the committee highlighted, why was that choice made? I appreciate that there is a freeze in the multiplier, and relief for renewables, but why is there no specific relief for the hospitality and retail sectors, given the pressures that they are under?

It is widely recognised that the increase in renewables, particularly in onshore wind power, has cut emissions but has not delivered the huge potential economic benefits that were envisaged, especially for jobs. The Scottish Trades Union Congress made that point in its response to the publication of the strategy.

When you were Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, we were promised that there would be 130,000 jobs in renewables per year by 2020. The Government does not record the numbers of such jobs, but a recent report by the Fraser of Allander Institute estimated that the actual number is only 27,000 per year. Does the Government currently have a target for jobs in renewables, which the strategy might help to deliver?

How do we measure that? At the moment, most of the onshore wind turbines that we see carpeted across our landscape are not built here in Scotland. How can we assess whether we are reaching that potential? The number of jobs in renewables will increase because of the work that is taking place, but how do we assess whether that is delivering the scale of the potential that is clearly out there?

I turn to Jon O’Sullivan from EDF Renewables and ask him the same question. Jon, you said that there were gaps in the energy strategy in respect of some of the targets around production. For me, the biggest gap related to jobs. What is the target for jobs?

You might think that I want that target so that I can assess whether you are delivering jobs in Scotland and not handing contracts overseas, but a target would flag up where there was a problem with the capacity in the supply chain or whatever the reasons were for jobs not coming to Scotland. I presume that you would support having proper data so that we can not only hold your feet to the fire to ensure that you are creating the 50 jobs in Eyemouth that you mentioned, which I have a keen interest in, but ensure that that is the maximum number of jobs. If there is a barrier to that, we need to break it down.

Good morning. I will follow up on a point that Claire Mack mentioned about how we measure economic success in renewables. There is no doubt that there has been good progress in the role of energy production in cutting emissions in Scotland, particularly through onshore wind energy. However, it is probably fair to say that that has not yet translated into the maximum number of job opportunities. In 2010, the Government’s “A Low Carbon Economic Strategy for Scotland” promised 130,000 renewables jobs by 2020. I remember being told that we would be the Saudi Arabia of renewables.

Claire, you mentioned the recent report by the Fraser of Allander Institute, “The Economic Impact of Scotland’s Renewable Energy Sector—2022 Update”, which estimated that the number of renewables jobs was 27,000, which is about a fifth of the target.

The first thing that struck me was that that was an estimate, because we do not seem to gather data on renewables jobs. The second thing that struck me was that, yesterday, when the cabinet secretary outlined the draft energy strategy and just transition plan, he used the term “low-carbon jobs”, which I think that Jon O’Sullivan mentioned, and the potential to reach 77,000 jobs. Obviously, that includes jobs in the nuclear industry. Then, during the discussion, he used the phrase “green jobs”. Three different terms for renewables jobs were used in the course of one discussion.

There is clearly a gap in the data, so what exactly should we measure when it comes to the economic benefits of the expansion of renewables? How do I and other politicians know that we are maximising the opportunities? You will all be able to tell me that companies are awarding contracts to Scottish firms and have created X jobs, but you will probably not tell me when the contracts go to overseas firms. How do I know that we are getting the maximum number of jobs and, if we are not, whether there is a barrier?

It is only fair to start with Claire Mack because she mentioned the topic and Scottish Renewables commissioned the work from the Fraser of Allander Institute in the first place.

Those are important points, but I am still struggling with why we are not measuring any of those things at the moment. Why do you have to do the work? When we politicians set targets, why do you have to measure what progress is being made on them?

James Reid has a keen interest in ensuring that we maximise supply chain jobs in Scotland. How do I know that companies such as FES Energy are getting those opportunities and that they are not, in effect, being offshored? Is that a challenge that you face, or is so much work going around that it is actually fine?

Similar to Michelle Thomson, I will make a pitch for disaggregating data on the basis of geography. That is helpful.