Chamber and committees

Perhaps I can bring in Professor Bell. A related matter, I suppose, is the fact that Scotland has significant economic inequalities. I am based down in Dumfries and Galloway, which is the lowest-paid region in Scotland. At the moment, the debate with regard to the just transition is on how we maintain the economic premium in the north-east but, to be frank, for my constituents just maintaining the status quo does not equal a just transition.

As for the drive towards renewables, the argument is that we do not build any of the turbines in Scotland; however, we put them up all over Dumfries and Galloway, and they are monitored not there but in an office in the central belt. Is there any evidence developing that the transition is tackling any of the economic inequalities that we have in Scotland, or is it just maintaining the status quo when it comes to the economy?

The point has been made a couple of times that one of the challenges of the transition is that, currently, wages in the oil and gas sector are often better than those in the renewables sector. I suppose that my question is for Professor Roy. Has the Scottish Fiscal Commission made an assessment of any of the second-order effects of the transition? For example, what is the impact of wage variations on the public finances?

I agree with you about highly paid jobs. Some of the sectors that we have mentioned so far—you have both mentioned tourism—are hugely important to our rural economy, but the jobs do not pay what an aircraft engineer is paid, for example. How we get highly paid, high-quality jobs into those areas is the challenge.

Has the balance of where your money goes changed? You published your annual report last week. About 150 businesses, I think, were involved in £9 million of direct grants. I am also conscious that, according to the report, your wage bill went up by 13 per cent. I appreciate that that is because you are a new business and are still ramping up your structures. However, the message that I often get from businesses in the south of Scotland is, “We had a really positive meeting with SOSE and got some really good advice, but there’s nae revenue or no money or no grants.” Will that balance of direct support through advice and grants tilt towards advice? Will the grants get progressively smaller next year as a result of those budget cuts?

I will pose a similar question to Stuart Black and Nick Kenton. Stuart, you mentioned a 5 per cent reduction in revenue and a 10 per cent fall in capital. Specifically, what will you not do next year that you would like do?

I absolutely take on board the point about advice. I have spoken to many businesses in my region that have benefited from advice and support from the agencies.

I have one final small point, though. I note that, in the submission from HIE, your target for the number of jobs to be supported next year is substantially less than the target for this year. Is that purely because of a major investment from a Japanese company? For the “Number of jobs supported” line, the target for next year is 600 to 700, whereas the target for this year was between 1,000 and 1,200.

I want to follow up on that theme, turning to the enterprise agencies. What is it that you will not be able to do? You talked about having to change the way in which you work in order to deal with substantial budget reductions, but I am still not entirely clear about what you will not be doing. I suppose the best way to put it is this: if you had more money, what would you like to do that you will not be able to do next year as a direct result of the budget savings? The enterprise agencies have had very substantial reductions in capital and other areas. What will you not be able to do next year as a result of those budget reductions?

When it comes to that balance, with what proportion of your budget next year will you employ staff? As I mentioned, there has been a 13 per cent increase in the wage bill. What proportion of the budget will be your running costs, if you like, and what proportion will be direct grants from SOSE next year, compared with this year?

It is important to recognise that the bill was passed by Parliament unanimously and that it stipulated that the regulations should come before us within two years. It is helpful that the minister has confirmed that the delay was entirely due to unsuccessful legal challenges by a number of big pub companies that sought to thwart the will of Parliament. It is also important to recognise that, as a result of those challenges, publicans are missing out on the rights that their counterparts in England and Wales have had since 2016.

I understand that, prior to the regulations coming before the committee, you received representations from the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, which highlighted that the code, as it is currently drafted, does not adequately protect tied pub tenants or reflect what was stated in the act. I appreciate that you have noted that larger changes may necessitate further consultation, but the SLTA outlined four areas, including market-rent-only leases, gaming machines and flow-monitoring devices, in which amendments could be made now, given that there was sufficient focus on those areas in the original consultation.

Have you given consideration to those proposed changes? Why have you opted not to make amendments to the regulations before us or, at least, to publish—before today—regulations that would have dealt with those particular concerns?

That is helpful.