 Good morning, and welcome to the 20th meeting of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee for 2019. I would remind everyone in the public gallery to turn off electrical devices so as not to interfere with the work of the committee. Item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. That is to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private, as the committee agreed. Item 2 is a decision on taking business in private. It is a decision by the committee to consider its draft stage 1 report on the Scottish National Investment Bank Bill in private at future meetings. This morning, we turn to our evidence on the Scottish National Investment Bank Bill again. We have with us Derek Mackay, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work. Welcome to you. David Wilson, programme director for the Scottish National Investment Bank directorate. Rachel Van Kampen, head of finance and resourcing, again from SNP and finally Fraser Goff parliamentary council office. Welcome to all of you. I will invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement at this point. Good morning. The publication of a draft bill is a significant milestone in the creation of the bank, laying the foundations for it to begin investing in businesses and communities across Scotland from 2020. The bank has the potential to transform Scotland's economy, as shown by the widespread support for the bank and the excitement that it has generated. The bill gives a clear basis for establishing the bank, ensuring that it is commercially minded and publicly accountable. Work to establish the bank so far, including developing the bill, is the product of collaboration with stakeholders from across Scotland's economy and society. Consultation and discussions with stakeholders have been crucial to the progress made in meeting the ambitions for the bank set out in the implementation plan. Certain key decisions are still to be taken before the bank becomes operational, including the products that will offer its structure and the scope of its missions. Of course, key to its success will be the way the bank acts and evolves over time when it is operational and therefore welcomes the committee's role in furthering public debate around the bank. The committee has heard and the evidence has received a constructive discussion on aspects of our proposals. We will continue to engage widely, including with this committee, as we finalise our proposals to ensure that the bank can truly transform Scotland's economy. I start by asking about the question of lending solely to private sector or not and commercial activities of the bank. I think that the bill team has recently clarified some aspects of this for the committee, as you will be aware. Can you add any further clarification to the question of the bank's approach to private sector lending and commercial activities with reference to the bill? In essence, what we mean by commercial is essentially a not-public sector, but that said, the clarification that I have provided is clear that it can invest in social enterprises, third sector and co-operatives. It is largely the nature of funding coming through financial transactions that is loans and equity. For that reason, it has that commercial nature. Because of the environmental and other societal and social burdens that we are applying to the bank, clearly it is not just a commercial entity, although a PLC is also a public body. That commercial element is just by the financial instruments that it can use and it does not invest in the public sector in the way that the Government would do through resource or capital grants. Is that helpful? Yes, I think that that is a very helpful clarification. Another few questions, perhaps the question of the bank carrying over funds from year to year and dispensation from Her Majesty's treasury. Can you tell us where we are at with that? It is a matter that I have raised with Liz Truss, the chief secretary of the treasury, including in writing. This is still under discussion. Essentially, if we do not get that dispensation, I think that it will constrain the bank and how it can invest in balance its affairs. I think that in trying to give the bank as much operational independence as possible, we would have more control than you might like over the bank if it did not have that ability to carry over resources. What do I mean in practice here? We are bound by the financial framework agreement where there are parameters set, there are caps set on our resources, on our reserve and on the carryover. If the bank's resources are part of that, then it constrains the bank, whereas if they have that dispensation, that freedom, then they have more financial independence of government within all the parameters that will set out, of course. I think that I have discussed this with the chief secretary of treasury in person. I have written to her. I have also engaged with the secretary of state on the margins of other events as well to express how important this is. It will still be manageable for us. The bank will still be able to operate without the dispensation, but it just makes it easier. Let me give me a practical example. If, let's say, there was a big receipt or return that came in near the end of financial year and the government was close to our own parameters, that might be really unhelpful. Then you are just trying to manage it, manage the accountancy exercise at the end, just rather than be able to receive and continue to invest. It is a kind of dispensation that the British Business Bank would have. I am not asking for any extra resource. The Treasury will be delighted to hear. I am just asking for that flexibility to be able to manage resources for the bank in a way that does not overly constrain either the bank or the government through the fiscal framework agreement as it stands right now. Of course, by the time the bank is operational, we are getting nearer the end of this term and therefore there will be the opportunity to revisit in the discussions around the fiscal framework agreement in any event, but it would be better to have this dispensation from the start. Discussions are on-going with the Treasury. I think that it is helpful. I think that it is necessary. It would be manageable without, but far from desirable. I hope that the Treasury ultimately comes to the conclusion that it is worthy of giving us this dispensation. Perhaps a final question from me on the question of state aid rules and possible permission required from the European Commission. Can you update us where we are at on that? I think that the committee will be well aware of the uncertainty around Brexit negotiations at the moment. The UK Government has not been enthusiastic to notify in any event that we want to build up the case or the pre-notifications right anyway. Ultimately, we would pass the work to base the business ministry and UK Government and they would carry out the notification process. We are building up that case. I think that there has been a period when the UK Government was not keen on the notification process because they did not think that it would be relevant or appropriate in light of Brexit negotiations, Brexit itself, but considering the extension, they are now minded to forward that and we will pass that to them for the interests of the European Commission. Contingency plans, if there is a change in circumstances, if there is a Brexit, we will not go into all of that, but there are also arrangements in place, as I understand it from the UK Government, about where we would notify if it is not the European Commission. Evidence to the committee has suggested that there is not the level of demand that was envisaged in the economy at the moment. We also heard from Rob Hunter of the development bank of Wales suggesting that £200 million is envisaged in the economy at the moment. Evidence to the committee has suggested that it is envisaged to be invested each year is about the right level for Scotland. Can you tell me what your feelings are on matching the supply and demand of funds that £200 million a year, whether it is right under the current circumstances? It is clear that we will have to consider how we finance the bank and the capitalisation of the bank from year to year as resources allow, having set out the £2 billion capitalisation over the 10-year period. Exactly how we profile that will be determined by the resources that we have available budget to budget within that aspiration. We will have announced the building Scotland fund and precursor funds, too, to the bank being established itself and they are being administered. Then, of course, are the other funds that will come from other places—the Scottish Investment Bank—that will form part of the finances. I would not set it out as rigidly as £200 million a year, as I say. I think that the profile may vary gear tier naturally. In terms of demand, we will want to make sure that there is demand for people queuing up to the door, if you like, so that they can take advantage of the financial products that would be available and to help stimulate that demand we would want to engage the enterprise agencies and SFTE. Of course, the banks are as appropriate as well, because the purpose of this is to give additionality, not to crowd out the financial products that banks are currently providing. Recognising where there are gaps in the economy and in the market right now, I think that we want to focus on that and try to stimulate the demand. Then, I think that the attention coverage and awareness that the bank hopefully will enjoy and we will encourage and stimulate will ensure that there is that demand. When we look at the transformational nature of the bank, trying to provide that patient finance, that patient capital, is a different kind of product that some of the banks we would traditionally use. For all those reasons, there will be demand. We may have to stimulate that by raising awareness and then I think that success will breed success. As I say, I have described the investment pattern that will vary from year to year, then we can respond accordingly, if that is helpful. Again, looking at the demand side, the committee heard from Rob Hunter that the Development Bank of Wales had an aim to reach £80 million of investment by 2022, but they achieved that in the first two years. Is there any reason why the demand profile in Scotland would be any different from Wales? The economies are clearly different. Some of the challenges that we will be facing will be different and how we choose to target our missions might be really good in terms of scale-ups or high-growth companies. I want to say that we are learning from Wales, we are learning from the British Business Bank and we are learning from the Green Investment Bank, but what we are doing is different from all of them. It is unique to Scotland's economic circumstances, our own landscape, but hopefully we can have that demand and investment. In relation to other investment funds that I am familiar with at the moment, the committee is very familiar with. There has been an issue right now around Brexit uncertainty impacting on investment plans being deferred and sometimes people are not willing to co-invest at the moment because of that Brexit economic uncertainty. If that is resolved, I think that there will be even more demand for those kind of products if we get beyond this Brexit uncertainty phase. That is just a point around evidence that I have seen about current financial tools not being deployed because of a lack of willingness to co-invents or the uncertainty or investment defer at this point in time, but we will continue to learn from the others. The British Business Bank has recently established a new demand development unit and I know that the Scottish Investment Bank works closely with the British Business Bank. Is there anything that we can learn or copy from this new unit that has been set up by the British Business Bank? Of course we will take the good practice from them. In my early days as finance secretary I engage with the British Business Bank. Of course we do not want to crowd out the BBB either. We want the British Business Bank to keep investing in Scotland and supporting Scottish business. What we are about is the additionality, but of course we can pick up their practice in terms of what they are trying to achieve. What we will have is missions specific to Scotland's economy and that is where we add that additionality, that particular focus. If there are practical measures for raising awareness, particularly targeting SMEs or scale-ups, that would be particularly useful for us. Having convened Scotland's Banking and Economy Forum, I am trying to ensure that we have good relationships with the banks and use an intelligent approach to provide resources and finance where it is not totally there at the moment. We will learn from the British Business Bank and the unit that it has created. Cabinet Secretary, we have heard from those involved in setting up the bank that the bank will not act as the originator of funding opportunities. It will rely on opportunities referred to it by the existing enterprise agencies, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands. Given the significant additional funding available from the bank, does that mean that the resources, budget and staffing levels of the enterprise agencies will increase to cope with the additional opportunities? I think that some of the issues have yet to be decided fully in terms of who transfers, what transfers and what resources are where. I want to look very closely at that. I do not want any duplication. I know that it is a matter that Dean Lockhart has mentioned in the chamber before. We do not want duplication, we do not want clutter. We want a really potent targeted national investment bank. That will leave the enterprise agencies with their functions and SFTE. We will look closely at how we align our efforts, our organisations and our staff. Right now, we are working on the single point of entry for business support as well. That is about de-cluttering. The way that the question was framed was that the bank will have a cost in an administration and then I add to the enterprise agencies. Rather, we will look right across the infrastructure and the landscape and say what fits best where and how can we address duplication and make sure that we are getting absolute maximum output for those public finances? Just to follow up on the question of alignment, the strategic board was set up two years ago to further align the activities of the enterprise agencies. Will the strategic board therefore sit on top of the bank and oversee the activities of the bank to ensure what you talk about that full alignment? That is a really good question, because in terms of the structure and governance of the bank that I have before me, we are proposing as well as the bank, of course, the board. There is ministerial accountability, there is Parliament, there is Audit Scotland, there is the advisory group that I am proposing to advise ministers, but the strategic board is providing advice around all government agencies. The bank is proposed to be a public body in a PLC, so I think that its relationship will be different. To assume that the strategic board will take no interest in the bank would be wrong, but I am trying not to make the lines of accountability too cluttered. There will be very clear lines of accountability for the bank. I think that it may well be able to give advice around the landscape of the agencies. I will give further thought, but I do not want the bank to be responding to too many sources of leadership when the purpose was to declutter and bring it together. I think that it will continue to provide recommendations around bringing the Government's agencies together that Mr Lockhart is very familiar with. If I may, the Scottish growth scheme was set up a couple of years ago to invest up to £500 million in the Scottish economy. Can you give us an approximation of how much has been funded under the Scottish growth scheme to date? I would rather do that in writing, so I get the figure absolutely right. I think that I committed to give the committee an update in any event and I will give you line by line portfolio by portfolio investment figures. The issue that we have faced, as Mr Lockhart is aware, is that some of the schemes took a wee while to set up, some of it is down to demand, some of it is genuinely down to, as I was touching upon earlier, investment plans being put on hold or the lack of co-investment. Essentially, am I still confident that the £0.5 billion that will be committed to in the programme for government will be allocated over the term? Yes, I am, but I will write to the committee so that you have each portfolio's amounts allocated to date, if that is helpful, because I know that I committed to give the committee an update on that. I think that the point is fair that we want to learn the lessons to make sure, back to the earlier point, about stimulating demand, raising awareness. As I said, there is almost a queue at the door as we are ready to go. Andy Wightman First of all, I want to ask a technical question. Why is it necessary to establish this bank via primary legislation, on the basis that Scottish ministers already own Scottish Water, David McBrains etc? You could set up a bank if you wished without legislation. What is the technical reason for the necessity of primary legislation? I am happy to turn to the lawyer to say why it is so, but civil servants are quite good at saying because you have to minister. It is more technical than that, but essentially it gives us the instruction and the basis. I think that it also gives the enduring nature of the bank if it is setting out the parameters, the function and it gives us the ability to capitalise by way of resources. Then it begs the question, what is different to before, while the scale of the bank is bringing it together? If we get the dispensations, it gives the bank further financial flexibility that current agencies do not enjoy, so there are benefits from it being established in legislation, but maybe Fraser would like to say more about the legal underpinning? I think that there is part of an issue really around just the democratic imprimatur behind the bank that we are talking about an institution that is going to be vested with very large sums of public money, and therefore it is attractive in a democracy to have the Parliament have an opportunity to shape that institution. Rather than the Government going away and drawing up the articles, the Parliament has, through this bill process, an opportunity to influence the structure and the operation of the bank. Beyond the bill process, we have the mechanism for amending the entrenched provisions in the bank's articles association, which are subject to a parliamentary scrutiny procedure, which again the Government would have no mechanism to create but through the vehicle of primary legislation, so there is the on-going role for Parliament as well that we really need the primary legislation to put in place. My question really was about necessity, not desirability. I understand the desirability, I'm grateful that we have a bill. I mean I'm advised that it's elements to do with section 17 on finance, providing grants, loans and guarantees that are prohibited by the Scotland act. I think probably there'd been an overstatement of the position, but there is a question about how much public money the Scottish Government can expend without very direct statutory cover. Budget act, to some extent, provides that, but this is on a scale that goes beyond that kind of typical spend. If I can just say again, I think I mentioned that as part of my introduction, just to the question, the power to capitalise the bank is clear as part of the bill. Okay, well, if you have further thoughts on the necessity to have legislation, what makes— The bank's a pretty good reason to legislate for a bank. I suppose my fundamental question is you could go ahead and do this without legislation, or could you? Or what's stopping you? If you can come back with us, that's fine. David, do you want to ask the following? I'll add very briefly. I think that the message your assessment is that the Scottish ministers could create an organisation that could take on many of the functions with both limits and scope, exactly as you describe. The decision that's been made and the advice that we've received is that in order to capitalise that company of the scale that ministers intend, you would need to have legislation. The central need for this legislation is to give ministers the power to capitalise the bank, not to create it as such. That's the power that ministers do not have at the moment to capitalise such an institution? Yes. Okay, thanks very much. On the implementation plan, the recommendation number one was that the vision for the bank should be to provide finance and act to catalyse private investment to achieve a step change in growth for the Scottish economy by powering innovation and accelerating the move to a low-carbon, high-tech, connected, globally competitive and inclusive economy. I don't think that you'd find much disagreement about that, but witnesses have questioned whether, in fact, that bold vision, as it were, is actually translated into the language of section 2 on the bank's objects that shall be in the articles. There's also been questions raised about 2A, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, with the poverty and inequality commission just this week saying that government needs to do more to define exactly what that means and how to measure it. I'm just wondering if you've had any further thoughts about the objects and whether you actually consider that the objects do faithful or reflect the recommendation on the vision and the implementation plan. I'm content that we'll absolutely achieve the vision for the bank through the objects and, of course, the missions. The missions will be absolutely crucial here. I think that, in the ancillary objects, it covers some of the areas that Andy Wightman has just mentioned, including investing in inclusive and sustainable economic growth, promoting and developing the activities of enterprises where a lack of financial investment is holding back economically viable commercial activity, promoting and developing the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises, creating and shaping markets through the provision of patient capital and contributing to the achievement of the Scottish Government's economic policy objectives, which include boosting competitiveness but also tackling inequality. I think that the missions will be critical and I think that they will absolutely speak to those areas further, including low-carbon. Now maybe we'll come back to the formulation of the missions. I have some ideas around that that I would like to discuss with the committee, but I do believe that the ambitions in consultation and the implementation plan will feature. Of course, it's fair to say that I'm looking at a chart of responsibility and a table of the bank's governance, but right across the articles of association, the shareholder framework document, the missions, and then that will lead to the investment strategy, the business plan, the ethical statement, so on and so forth. We'll absolutely want to direct this bank in a way that Parliament would want it to and Government would certainly want it to, so I don't think that there's any risk of the intentions being lost here. The question more is that recommendation 1 is quite a visionary statement. The language of section 2 is the dry language of articles and memorandum of association. I don't doubt that you share the vision set out in recommendation 1, but in 10, 15 years' time that may not be the vision of an administration. I'm just wondering whether one can—if that vision is important, I believe it is. I think that we all believe it is. Is there any way of incorporating that in the bill to make it clear about what this bank is actually for? I think that the bill does do that, but the bill is essentially enabling us. It's building the structure. The bank will be enduring. It'll be a long term. I think that it'll be a permanent feature of our financial landscape, but I think that the missions need to be adaptable. Of course, there are some that are entrenched in terms of how we deliver the bank. There is that parliamentary involvement as well. I do believe that we have to be quite adept and agile to circumstances as well. I think that that's why it's important that the missions aren't outlined in the bill, so that if we were to change or amend, we shouldn't have to return to Parliament with primary legislation every time we wanted to change. However, the bill has to give us the structure and the enablement to be able to get on with the bank. There are many other areas about what it will do practically. I don't think that it's right for legislation, but should feature any other devices that I've spoken about? You mentioned the mission and the role of Parliament. You rightly draw our attention to the fact that the entrenched provisions can only be modified if a resolution is being laid and approved by Parliament. That's not the case, however, with the missions. Do you think that there is any case for the missions that have given how central they appear to be to the role of the bank, whether they should be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny at least or indeed resolution? I don't think that they should, but I have an idea about that. In terms of the missions, I think that it's right that the Government can get on with its job as an executive and have that relationship with the bank. There will be that degree of independence, but it will set out the parameters within which it should be operating. Illustrative missions have been set out. That includes demographic change, the low-carbon economy. I led the work on behalf of the Government for the National Performance Framework, which is the purpose, the mission and the outcomes and the indicators, if you like, for the purpose of the Government. Essentially, we tried to make it about the country as well. It didn't require an affirmative vote by Parliament. That was a mission for the whole country, but the way we were able to take it forward was quite inclusive. It was through engagement, consultation, stakeholder round table, cross-party basis. What I would like to do with the missions is the same kind of approach. I commit to a round table approach. There is extensive consultation already under way, but rather than having a parliamentary vote and an unnecessary division on it, I don't think that it's for Parliament to have a vote on it, but I would like to engage Parliament with it. The same as I did for the National Performance Framework, I am keen to have a cross-party approach just to look at the missions and refine them. If I can get, in terms of the National Performance Framework, the likes of Murdo Fraser and Patrick Harvie to agree on the purpose of the country, then surely we can approach the missions for the bank on that same consensual, constructive basis, but there are other stakeholders that we must engage with as well. Although it is ultimately for government, I want to take a collaborative approach to the creation of the missions. I haven't already published some of the illustrative missions, but that's not the end of the matter. The bill says that you'll send a document to the bank setting out new missions or modifying or ending missions, as it were. Missions are designed to be fairly long-term. What proportion of the bank's resource shall be devoted to the pursuit of missions as opposed to other financial products that it may develop routinely? I wouldn't want to set a percentage as a good question, but that would feature in the investment strategy and the business plan particularly. I would expect those missions for them to be transformative, to absorb a lot of the energy and resource of the bank, so we're directing the bank to engage in those missions. That's not to say that every single investment would be exclusive as part of the missions, but you would expect that to be directing the energies of the bank. I wouldn't set out a specific percentage, but we'll get further information from the investment strategy and the business plan that the investment bank would lead on and then it would be for ministers to review. I'm not looking for a specific percentage, I'm just looking for a kind of indication, because given the importance that's been attached to mission-orientated finance, and I'm looking particularly at the paper that was produced by the Government by Mariana Matzrachat and Laurie McFarlam in March 2019, you see the mission-based finance as a substantial part of this bank's activity. When I said that I think that it'll absorb the energy and resources of the bank, my indication is that I expect it to be a real focus on the missions, yes. That's helpful, thanks very much. Finally, on ethics, we've had some sort of discussion around ethics. I'm just wondering whether you feel there needs to be any legislative provisions around ethics of the bank, or that's something that you're content to leave to the board? Well, neither of those options. I don't intend to legislate specifically on what we would define as ethical, but there will be an ethical statement, and then the contrast here is that I wouldn't just leave it to the board, although it's appropriate that the board leads on the ethical statement, it would be for ministers to review it. Naturally, ministers would engage, and in the shareholder framework document earlier than that, I'm sure that ministers would want to give a view on what we felt was the spirit of ethical investment in practice. That said, of course, that as a public body it would be bound by things like the public sector equality duty, representation on public boards, swan and so forth, so there will be some already existing legislation that would be relevant to a public body, but we would review the ethical statement, and I wouldn't just leave it to the bank to compose an ethical statement that I would propose to engage beforehand. The statement's not a legislative requirement. No, but the way the question was framed is would I legislate, and I said no, and then I was asked would I leave it to the board, and I also said no, and then gave the appropriate answer. Very impressed minister, thank you very much indeed. That's all from me. Colin Ritty. There are a couple of areas that I'd like to explore. The first is about the targeted rate of return. The bills policy memorandum states that the bank will deliver against the target rate return set by the Scottish ministers. Now, we've taken a fair bit of evidence on this, and there's a range of approaches taken for national development banks. Some banks have target rates returns, and others don't. What's the reasoning behind having a target rate of return for SNP? I suppose that it's set a target, but let me frame that very carefully. I think that we have to bear in mind that this is not about economic commercial profit return, although it's good that what is raised is then naturally reinvested, although ministers have the option of dividend as well. Because we're putting those societal, those transformational, those environmental issues there as well, it's not all just about the rate of return. Others have one. I think that it's appropriate for the Scottish National Investment Bank to have one, but I wouldn't be bound to it as giving the impression that the rate of return is more important than the other considerations. Transforming our economy in the way that we were describing earlier, around low-carbon, demographic change, the scale-ups and support of our economy and the SMEs, is all important as well. I think that it's important to have a rate of return. We'll engage with the bank on that, but I don't want it to be overly restrictive or give the impression that that is the matter of primacy. It's not about transforming our economy and adding to it. The other issue here to bear in mind, of course, is that it's the nature of patient finance that there might not be short-term or immediate return. It might be long-term before investments can return resource. I think that there's a number of considerations appropriate to have one, but we won't be absolutely beholden to that as the only measure of success. Is there then a point in having a rate of return? You've highlighted quite a number of issues that would indicate that a target rate of return might not be appropriate. I think that it's important to have one but not to be totally beholden by it. As long as we are bearing in mind the other considerations that the bank will have and the missions that we're setting them, I think that it's good to have there as a benchmark but not be an absolute prisoner to that rate of return. I'm sure that it will be used to compare with other financial institutions as well, but I think that we'll all look reasonably at what's appropriate. We don't have a proposed rate of return yet because this, of course, is just about the legislation for the bank. It's much closer to its operation and then we'll set that out in the relevant document. Has any consideration been given as to what the likely target rate of return will be? Not yet, although we're looking very closely at the rate of return with others. Is there not danger if a rate of return is set that human nature being human nature, everything gets measured against that? It becomes the totem that everyone operates against. It's a fair question that Mr Beattie is asking, but I'm trying to express that we should have one so that we have another matrix of success and benchmark, but we mustn't be beholden to it because of the missions that we're trying to establish for the bank, so it should be there and present. We should be mindful of it, but it mustn't be the north star, the only thing that we follow. Leading from that is the other point that I wanted to talk about, which is breakeven. Operating costs, breakeven point, is a timeline of 2023-24. The bank is going to be investing in firms whose needs for capital aren't adequately serviced already by the market and the reasons for the lack of that investment are often complex. Is it likely that the bank's higher risk profile is going to impact on the potential breakeven date? What would that mean? It's likely that it's possible, but depending on what's invested in when there is financial return on the state of the economy at the time or where there is success, whether it be around the missions or the profiles of investment, what we choose to do around the economic cycle or relates to my earlier point about availability of resources, how quickly we can capitalise the bank. All those determinants will then lead to the issue of how soon it achieves breakeven. Clearly, as finance secretary, I want that to be as soon as possible, but if it's stimulating the economy and delivering the necessary investments that is enhancing and improving our economy as economy secretary, then I'll welcome that stimulation. We've set out in the financial memorandum what we think the cost would be. We've certainly set out what we think the benefits would be, but it will depend on the investment profile, the returns and the nature and state of the economy at the time. Could breakeven be measured as a book entry or actual cash in the banks, so to speak? In other words, we were talking previously about patient capital, which means that it could be years before you're actually able to crystallise any profit that might be made in that investment, but you would be booking it every year, obviously. Is it a book breakeven, or is it cash? I was asked before—I can't remember if it was this committee or another committee—what is success for the national investment bank. I actually said to allow investments to happen that wouldn't otherwise happen, so I'm not seeing the national investment bank as a cash cow that can then contribute to the fiscal coffers as nice as that would be. It's more about transforming our economy, stimulating investment, providing financial support, where maybe it's not there right now, transforming the economy to direct more efforts around that demographic challenge, that environmental challenge of a transition to the low-carbon economy and the scale-ups. In terms of self-financing and the ability to reinvest its returns, I want that to be as soon as possible, but I see its contribution to the economy to be much greater than the ability for ministers to take a dividend. That's not the motivation of the bank. The sooner it can be self-financing the better, naturally, but the bigger prize is what it can do for the economy and what it can do for business support and what it can do to transform our economy. That's what I see as success—investments that wouldn't otherwise be happening. The target date for breakeven is more notional than actual? On the range of determinants that I've set out, I suppose so, yes. One last question is to finish off. Obviously SNP's intended to be a cornerstone for the Scottish economy in the future and hopefully something that's going to be with us for a very long time. Are you satisfied that the way it's being set up, that it's going to be free from future political interference, so to speak, changes of regime and so on? Well, because I haven't seen your committee report yet, so I'm not sure how much you want to interfere as a committee, first of all. Also, in this convener, the way that we are trying to structure the bank and the arrangements around it, it does get the balance right. I think that the PLC, but a public body, with the relevant accountability, transparency, governance arrangements, advisory boards so that they can hear from different parts of society, ministers can direct and engage as appropriate. I think that it's really important that all the advice and evidence that we have heard that it will achieve more if it's independent as possible. That's why there's public money, so there's all the appropriate checks and balances, but there is that operational independence. In setting out the missions, we can direct the banks' efforts and energies. In setting out the shareholder framework document, it gives us assurance on how it will operate. We're clear that we're setting out the articles association, including those entrenched articles, and then other policies ministers will be able to review. I think that we've got the balance right, but of course I'll continue to engage with the committee in terms of any suggestions that the committee may have around that. I do believe that the balance is right so that the bank endures beyond any parliamentary term or term of finance secretary or otherwise. Angela Constance. Good morning, cabinet secretary. He's probably aware that both engender and close the gap raised serious concerns about the equality impact assessment, in essence saying that it lacked substance, that it was incomplete and that the analysis was somewhat cursory. I would like to know how the cabinet secretary intends to interfere to rectify that matter. Of course ministers are perfectly entitled at this stage, as is Parliament, to create the very bank, so I wouldn't see that element as interference at all. I've seen the evidence from close the gap and engender. There's official meetings with organisations to absolutely go through the concerns so that that can then shape and inform future work, and that will feature. I'm very mindful though, and I've just touched upon this earlier, that as a public body, the bank will be duty bound to follow the duties that are set out. Maybe some of the elements around equality or the duties weren't expressed in this bill because it's required de facto of any bill or any public sector body. Does the expectation that that would all have been delivered and complied with without reference to it because it's the legal position that stands such as the public sector equality duty and other duties in the Equality Act 2010? There will be further work on the social economic deprivation work through the fairer Scotland duty assessment. I understand that assessments findings will be published at the end of the summer, so that will feature in the various strands of work yet to come. Between the engagement with the organisations to make sure that we get it right and how we direct and target and point the organisation itself, I want to make sure that we will cover the issues of an inclusive approach and economic growth sustainability equality and tackling inequality as well. I think that they will feature essentially in the missions, in the shareholder framework document and then I would expect them to be in the remuneration policy investment strategy, the business plan and the ethical statement. I think that it's right that they feature in those documents which ministers will be reviewing. If it was felt and it clearly was by that evidence that there were gaps, I want to work on that, including what we can do around the opportunity for those with protected characteristics. We will meet individually with the organisations and then we will see what further progress we can make over the course of the bill. It may be even more important than the bill itself, which allows us to build the bank, but those strategic documents and directions in which equality should feature. Would the cabinet secretary accept that it is better to be explicit whenever there is an opportunity to articulate what everybody is required to do in terms of advancing equality? I think that lawyers might be better placed to argue this. I think that pieces of legislation, cross-referencing and other pieces of legislation can get quite messy, but what should absolutely feature for the avoidance of doubt is those legislative drivers, missions, objectives should absolutely feature in the other driving documents that I have suggested. I don't think that legislation should be overly complex, but we all have to be bound by that, which Parliament has stated that we should do, but it absolutely must feature in the top-level documents and directions that the bank would operate under. I think that we should be explicit in how we do our business and how we operate and what we are trying to achieve. The word equality is not mentioned in the bill, so I wonder how does the emission of equality from the bill fit with inclusive growth as an outcome and, more important, with the resendature of the bill, which, as you say, cabinet secretary, is to transform the economy by increasing not just competitiveness but also reducing inequality? The bill directs people to the Government's economic strategy, which absolutely does mention tackling inequality. The Government's economic strategy does focus on inclusive economic growth and greater equality. We have tried to keep the bill as tight as possible to enable the bank to be created. All those other documents, such as from the articles of association, the mission and the framework document and all the other policies, should feature the objectives and the language that is right and appropriate. For the avoidance of doubt, just because the word equality is not mentioned in the bill, it will absolutely be mentioned where appropriate in all the other documents. The Government's economic strategy that the bill references the bank to does mention tackling inequality as a key part of the Government's economic strategy. That is tackling inequality in every sense, not just financial inequality. However, you are accepting that visibility and clarity are important. Absolutely, I accept that. The committee has heard mixed evidence about the bank's remuneration policy. On the one hand, the bank will be operating in the financial sector and, for some people, they would expect that to be reflected in terms of conditions, etc. However, other evidence has pointed to the fact that this is a public body accountable to taxpayers. There is a need to deliver value for money and that public support for the bank and its policies remains important. I wondered what the cabinet secretary's views on remuneration policy are. Our misconstance has given a very fair articulation of the issues that it will be wrestling with as a Government, as a Parliament, about what we want the bank to achieve. It will be essentially a PLC, but a public body, we will be wrestling with making sure that we can attract the right people to operate it as a bank. It will not be possible for every member of staff to work in the public sector pay policy, but it will not be possible for every member of staff. I echo the comments that the First Minister has made in this regard. She said that, if the bank is to be successful, we want to attract the top talent to run it and we need to be able to attract that talent equally. There is a climate and a culture where there can be a public concern about salaries that are overly inflated. In shorthand, we do not want to have those kinds of concerns in a public loaned organisation that is there for the public good. As the remuneration policy is set out, we will need to bear in mind that absolutely the bank will work within the fair work principles and will be a living wage employer. I know that all of that has been welcome, but I think that to secure the level of staff that we will undoubtedly require, higher levels of remuneration will be required for some posts. We will look closely at the British Business Bank, which is similar in this regard, in terms of its pay policy to then determine what is right for the Scottish National Investment Bank, which will be commercially minded but publicly accountable. That is a matter that we will give a great deal of thought to. It will be a balance between people with the right skills and experience, but respect to public sector pay policy, where I know that the vast majority of staff would fit within. The remuneration policy in the recruitment of bank staff will be for the bank to lead, but minister will set out a view on that in a direction, if appropriate. We will give that further thought based on the evidence of equivalent organisations such as the British Business Bank, mindful of the public sector pay policy but a recognition that it is not just another public body that will need to attract the right staff. It will be a balance here, as Ms Constance has articulated. What are your views on performance-related pay? I do not want to see a bonus culture within the bank. I think that that would be an inappropriate driver. I want the bank to be inspired and energised by the missions, and I would not want them to be encouraged to have a bonus culture. As far as I have been finance secretary, I have not encouraged the bonus culture within the civil service or the public sector pay policy, and I would not like to see it within the bank. It creates the wrong type of culture. It will be focused on delivery with appropriate remuneration and the structure that I have set out. Thank you, convener. I wonder whether I could pick up on two issues already covered with the minister before I move to my question. I welcome the cabinet secretary's invitation for the committee to interfere. I view that as positive encouragement to do so. Does he have in mind a particular role for the committee in that interference, or do we have a blank sheet that we can do what we will with it? I am totally open, accountable, transparent to this committee, and it is no-hold barred from Jackie Baillie, as always. You do not let me down, cabinet secretary. You can look with interest at our report then. The other thing that you touched on in reply to Gordon MacDonald is about stimulating demand and talking about the challenge posed by Brexit. You have forecast my question, which is that the Scottish European Growth Co-Investment programme only has managed to allocate £3.25 million out of a total of £200 million. I wonder whether you think that Brexit has been the cause of that slow take-up in demand. The businesses have been telling me that investment plans have been deferred because of Brexit. That is one of the reasons for companies holding off. I have been meeting with businesses that are keen to invest in the UK and Scotland, because it is very hard to answer the Brexit question, what will the position be. Some companies are holding off investment now for that reason. If a company is holding off investment, it is therefore no surprise that some companies are not seeking that funding to go ahead with investment plans, so I think that it is having a material impact on the economy. I accept that, but the thing that absolutely confuses me about that is that the co-investment programme was announced to great fanfare maybe two and a half, three years ago almost, and it was set up to help businesses grow in the face of Brexit. Isn't it the case therefore that you didn't do your homework in setting the fund up? No, not at all. There's no need for the pejorative language in terms of that. It takes time to establish investment funds. There's got to be due diligence. We've got to make sure that we can reach out to those potential investors. I absolutely understand all of that and agree with the cabinet secretary, but in your evidence to the committee just moments earlier you said part of the problem was Brexit, and it was stopping people investing. That fund was set up by the Scottish Government to deal with the problem of Brexit, so the contention that I'm making is that you didn't understand the market when you set the fund up. Not at all. We committed to financial support. The question that I was asked earlier is would we fulfil that commitment around £0.5 billion of financial support? I've said yes we will. I've said I'll provide further information to the committee on the profile of that. We can create a fund and we can offer loan and equity, but that doesn't force companies to take the financial products that we have. I've also been clear to government agencies that we can be creative in terms of doing our homework if we have financial products that there isn't enough demand for, then create bespoke products. Let's see how we can support companies if they want a different kind of financial product. The nature of financial transactions, for example, can only be loans and equity. Companies will always take free money before loans and equity. Naturally, anyone would take grant before loans and equity, but we were providing loans and equity because of the nature of the economy or the nature of risk or financial uncertainty. I think that companies may not be willing to take up specific projects. In terms of the Scottish European Growth Investment programme, we will have to comply with the rules that are appropriate to use those resources for. It's always been my position as finance secretary never to lose any resources either. People won't take the financial products that we have. We can see how we can amend them so that we can provide further support to the private sector. I'm afraid that Brexit uncertainty has been raising its head since the referendum itself and having a material impact on the investment decisions of companies and potential investors. It's just that you brought forward that fund in light of all that. Can I just pick you up on your latter point? If it's not working, you'll seek to reallocate the money. Are we to take it then that the Scottish European Growth Co Investment programme is coming to an end? Is it going to be altered? Is the money going to be reallocated? No, I'm still intending to use it, but what I'm saying is that if there's any prospect of Scotland losing out on finance, I'll make sure that we can adapt so that we never lose up any that Scotland's entitled to. It's just unfortunate, of course, that, thanks to the efforts of the UK Government, we might be on track to lose out on substantial sums of money if there's not a resolution to the financial guarantees coming from the UK Government because of the funds that we've enjoyed from the European Union. So what I'm saying is that I have financial products. If they can work better, I'll try to make them better so that they're used in support of the Scottish economy. Excellent, thank you. Your implementation plan states that a balanced scorecard will be developed between the bank and the Scottish Government, and that would set out the requirement and measurement of non-financial returns. Can the cabinet secretary point to where that feature is in the bill or in any supporting document? Well, we haven't put much detail on the bill. We're still working on this so that we have both within the framework, the stakeholder framework document, I think it should feature within there. We will set financial targets for the bank through that stakeholder agreement. We will cover it in the missions covering key social economic challenges for the bank. I think that as part of that, we'll have the financial and non-financial returns. As a patient stakeholder, then clearly we'll give time for resources to return to the bank. I would expect it to feature within the business plan, the investment strategy as well, in terms of reference to that balance scorecard. It will build on the Treasury's Green Book guidance, which would develop a specific approach that is suited to a mission-orientated development back. There is nothing that we can find in the bill or in the supporting document, so I am encouraged by what the cabinet secretary is saying. I would be very keen if we're going to set up an institution like this, so that the non-financial returns are something that the Government prioritises and that there is clear sight and measurement of them. If we can see the kind of guidance that's developing the business plan, the earlier sight the committee has of your intentions, the more confident we would feel about those returns. I think that that's a fair point, convener. I still don't think that Jackie Baillie is making this point that she should be in the primary legislation to create the bank. I think that we're agreed on that, but it should absolutely feature the expectation within the stakeholder framework document. That's clear, that's the relationship between bank and Government, and then feature elsewhere as appropriate to capture those financial and non-financial matters. I'll give that further thought as to how it features, but I take the point that it's not for the primary legislation, but it should be back to Angela Constance's point, explicit elsewhere. John Mason. Thank you, convener. Cabinet secretary, you've mentioned the advisory group once or twice already this morning. I just wanted to ask you a little more about that. The reality is that we've had a variety of witnesses giving us a variety of advice, some wanting the advisory group more separate stand-alone, some wanting it more involved. It was just to ask you around that area how you see the advisory group going. Am I right in saying that it would really be there to advise ministers rather than to advise the bank itself? Yes, that's correct. The intention is that the advisory group would be advising ministers and clearly we have a relationship with the bank, rather than the bank trying to look to too many different places. It is our view that the advisory group should be advising ministers, that's correct. So would there be no relationship directly between the advisory group and the bank? I think that we could give that further thought, but whether the advisory group should never meet the bank, I don't know if they want to be too specific about that, if that would be overly restrictive, but the purpose of the advisory group is to advise ministers, ultimately, who we direct to the bank through the missions, through the shareholder framework, through the act. Parliament will create the act and then we will hold the bank to account as well. The advisory group would not be in the act, is that correct? That is not the intention. No, because it is an advisory function, so we are not proposing to put it in the act. The question has also risen, should somebody, perhaps the chair or some other member of the advisory group also be on the board of the bank, and again I think that we have had different views on that, can you give us any thought about your current thinking on that? I think that we could give further thinking around that in terms of the chair. The proposal in the consultation paper was that one of the non-executive directors would be the chair of the advisory group to create the link between the thinking in the advisory group and also the connection to the board and its thinking. On the one hand, that would give a connection, but on the other hand, would that compromise the independence of the advisory group? I think that it gives you the link that Mr Mason was asking about, but not the advisory group into the board, but the board to the advisory group. The important point about the advisory group is that we want it to be reflective of Scotland, of the key economic interests. It cannot be totally comprehensive and cover every sector, but we want it to inform the group itself that informs the ministers. I think that it will give that relationship direct to ministers. We want them to act as our advisers in terms of the wider economy, and then there is that link from the board itself in terms of non-executive director, but they of course would be outnumbered by all the other members on the advisory group. I think that we have been looking at a membership of around 20, and we were open to that, but I think that that is quite representative. On membership, we have had a variety of thoughts and comments. One example was nurses and social workers might be on the advisory group, which traditionally for a financial institution would not be the expectation or a requirement. I think that it was an example of having a very wide group involved in the advisory group, including a lot of people who would not have a financial background. Is that your kind of thinking? I mean, I wouldn't want to create almost representative posts of a sector, but the mission here for it to be as representative as possible. I think that it goes back to Angela Constance's point about equality, representation and who populates that board as well, or that group. We will look at how it is formed as we work towards its operation, and I can provide further information to the committee. That is obviously not for this legislation, but it is absolutely for the operation of the bank. OK, that is helpful. If I can just ask a slightly separate point, you explained earlier on that one of the reasons for setting the bank up legally the way you are is that that would give it kind of longevity and it should go through political cycles. I mean, we have used the word patient quite a lot. For example, you said patient stakeholder and we are talking about patient capital. Are you optimistic that the politicians, and I am thinking of people like Jackie Baillie and Dean Lockhart, will be patient going forward? Or do you think that they will, on day one, be immediately asking for a high rate of return and criticising you if they don't get it? I think that it has very unkind comments to other committee members, although I think that the analysis is probably 100 per cent fair that ministers and the bank should be held to account. It goes back to the earlier point that this is not about necessarily raising revenue for government as nice as that would be. It is about helping us to transform the economy, provide that financial support where it doesn't fully exist at the moment and target some of the issues that could really help us out. We take one area such as renewables. If it levered in, financed to the renewable sector to capitalise on our wonderful natural assets and our ability to create clean green energy, then it is the kind of investment that will be transformational. I think that we will all be enthusiastic about the bank's creation and we want to get it right, but of course it will be held to a very high standard and that is admirable. I want to address a couple of issues on missions. In previous evidence sessions, there was some confusion over whether all funding made by the bank would be mission-based or whether the bank can lend outside of the core missions across all sectors, as the Scottish Investment Bank currently does. Can the cabinet secretary please confirm? Yes, we want the missions and we have published the illustrative missions. Arguably, they are quite wide but also focused, so focus on that inclusive, sustainable economic growth and the missions that will set out beneath that. To answer the question directly, the bank will be able to allocate resources outwith the missions, but that will be for them to decide. It will need to be within, of course, the ethical statement within their investment strategy, within all those considerations and burdens that we put upon them, but it is not inconceivable or impossible that the bank would invest, because we won't be micromanaging the individual investments that the bank makes. It is not impossible that it will invest outwith the missions, but within those other policy parameters. Let me give you one example that was raised during previous committee sessions. Would investment in the oil and gas sector, for example, be consistent with a low-carbon mission for the bank? It depends on what the bid for funding is. Let's say that it was oil and gas company diversifying from extraction into renewables, for example, or how you reduce emissions, so I think that you'd have to look at the funding. It goes back to my earlier point about how it would be possible if it meets the other policy requirements that an investment is made outwith the specific missions, and it will be down to the nature of the application and the investment that is sought. Of course, the bank will be looking at a balanced investment profile as well. You then come to a wider debate over the course of building up the bank's ethical statement as well around the restricted nature of what the bank may not be investing in, and we may have a view on that. If we want to speculate too much what it can and can't invest in, when this is about the legislation to build the bank and some of those matters will be for investment strategy or the ethical policy. Section 11 allows Scottish ministers to change the bank's mission statement by sending a document. Concern has been raised about perhaps mission statements being changed too often. There was some concern that perhaps mission statements might be changed every year as part of the annual report. Would you think that changing the mission statement every year would be too often, would not be appropriate? Yes, every year would be too often. Clearly for patient financing, for a long-term economic strategy, if you were to change them every year I think that would be too often. I think that it should be flexible enough to change it as the economy demands, but it strikes me that a year would be too often, especially when the bank will have a business plan and its own investment strategy. I would imagine that the missions are more medium-term than short-term change them every year. How can the bank make those strategic long-term investments if we are changing it every year? On that point, you mentioned future-proofing the bank against changes in government, would you consider future-proofing changing the mission statements in the legislation so that ministers could only change the statement every two years to reflect your concerns about this long-term thinking? I think that I really do not want to tie the legislation up in formulae or unnecessary parameters. I get the intention behind the question, but I think that any wise minister would know that it was counterproductive to be constantly or annually changing the missions, but I do not think that we should necessarily tie our hands for what the fact or what clearly is common sense wise in the right thing to do. I do not know if Dean Lockhart now feels an amendment coming on to the bill, but I am sure that Mr Lockhart understands the point that you have asked my direct question. I have answered it. I think that I need to legislate for common sense. I do not think so. We will leave it at that point. Jamie Halcro Johnston The implementation plan notes that SNIB will have a national mandate to realise benefits of investment at scale while maintaining regional reach to help businesses to realise their full economic potential. Last week, we took evidence from the Development Bank of Wales and Rob Hunter was very clear that maintaining or ensuring that regional approach is extremely important. How will you ensure that that happens with the bank, that it has that regional approach rather than focusing perhaps on central belt or other areas? Let me be clear that I do not want the bank to just focus on the central belt or where you might think that the economic clusters are because the bank can deliver for every part of the country. I just mentioned just a moment ago the potential around renewables. That is clearly on the island communities, well-cost communities and rural communities. The financial products that the bank can provide can touch every part of Scotland and there would be an expectation. Of course, sometimes there is a disproportionate positive effect on rural areas from what might be less resource in large urban areas. My expectation is that it can cover every part of the country, that its financial products will be open to every part of the country and it can have that geographic approach. Let us not worry about that physical issue. It is the accessibility of the bank. It will not be like a traditional bank where you rock up to the counter and ask for a loan. It is how you make those financial products available intelligently, but we want to make sure that it has that national locus. I can also engage with Business Gateway and local authorities as well in ensuring that the bank has national reach. Similarly, we can support the deployment of those resources across the country. The South of Scotland development enterprise agency that we now have has a further addition to the economic landscape that is very welcome. My ambition is to make sure that it speaks to the whole country and its financial products will work for the whole country. The suggestion that I got there was that, despite the fact that it is still being consulted or considered, you would not see the bank having regional offices or local offices. It is not the kind of bank where accommodation is yet to be determined. That is a matter for how it looks operationally once we have got to the issue about who is exactly doing what in terms of the composition of the bank from other current agency functions such as enterprise agency, SFT and so on. However, the point around the bank is that most people will contact the bank not by a physical attendance but by telephone, email, reference and engagement with other agencies. I do not think that it is about physical location but about how you open up the bank's financial products. Although investments will be merit-based, but, as I said just a moment ago, the benefits of the bank and the financial tools can reach right across Scotland. In some of the missions, particularly taking that low-carbon issue, where renewables can be delivered, can reach to parts that other banks can't reach, that sounds like an adverse strapling that I did not intend. I haven't paid a consultant for that advice, I should say. I think that you would have your money back if you did, but I think for that. In terms of local government, you mentioned some of the agencies involved. Would you see local government having a particular role, a defined role within the bank structure? Obviously, they have a role within for business gateway at the moment. How would you see that? The committee has paid close attention to business gateway and given me recommendations that suggest that we need a bit of national consistency. For that reason, in matters that the committee well understands, I want the bank to have national consistency. I work closely with local authorities on economic development. Following the committee's consideration of business gateway, I am reaching out to local government to see how we can do local economic development better. I am not proposing a local role for local councils. No, this is a national investment bank. I want to work with local authorities, but I won't give them a particular decision making role. Of course, there is an expectation that the economic development unit's business gateway and others work with the bank to make sure that it fulfills our potential in every part of the country. To use your earlier language, Cabinet Secretary, Andy Wightman would like to rock up with another question at this stage. It is a question about rocking up to the counter. Is it envisaged that the Scottish investment bank will have to either obtain a banking licence or be regulated by the financial conduct authorities? Is it envisaged that it will not be? There are subsidiaries of the development bank of Wales that are because of what they do. Will you be desperate to say something now? They have been deprived all session this morning, so I will pass that to David. To be clear, the bank will not require a banking licence, which was set out in the implementation plan last year. There will, however, be a number of more detailed clearances with the financial conduct authority, particularly on the use of the term. A bank will need its approval. We have already been in touch with it, and we are not anticipating any particular challenge around that, but it is one of the number of approvals processes that we need to go through. We will also raise closely with the FCA about the senior managers' conduct arrangements and other more detailed points, but to be clear, there is no requirement for a banking licence for the nature of the activities that it will do. I think that some of the issue here is if it had been a retail bank, we would have required it. Convener, do not underestimate the willingness of some people to invest in a national investment bank thinking that it is a retail bank, but it is not. It is very specific around the mission and what we are trying to achieve in the financial products that we have, which may well grow over time. That would be a good thing if the bank grows over time and then looks at other functions, but it is as it is that it will do what it says on the tin right now. If it had been a retail bank, it would have required a licence. Yes, because the Welsh Development Bank is doing things that demand regulation like help to buy, etc. There is nothing to rule out such activities in the future if the bank considers that they would be necessary. Obviously, part of that would be the requirement to get a licence, but you do not envisage it at the moment as the key message. It is not part of the proposals at present that, inevitably given the structure of the legislation, there would be opportunities for change and evolution of the bank, but it is not part of the proposals at the moment. Just for completeness, it is not true to say that we could not do help to buy because we currently do help to buy. We have a question of whether you do it through the bank or not, because the development bank of Wales has helped to buy programme requires regulation, but there is nothing to rule out in 10 years time this PLC deciding that, or perhaps an administration deciding, it wanted to get into fields that required licence and going through the due process to obtain one. It is not what you envisage at the moment though. There are certain changes that would be required depending on the nature of the change of the bank's functions. Clearly what we are doing in statute is to enable the bank. We are doing much more in the policy areas. I think that I might be helpful if the committee had sight of the chart that I had commissioned for briefing today. I will share that with. I do not know if the committee has this. I am happy to share what I asked for. It has assisted me. I am happy to share that. There are many elements that Mr Wightman has really excited at the prospect of sharing the chart. In terms of creating the statute, there are changes that you can make within policy and missions. If there was to be a much larger change to the nature of the bank, that would require primary legislation, but it would have to return to the Parliament clearly. I am not particularly excited at sharing your briefing. It will be very useful to say that I am more excited at the prospect of the chart. If you felt that you were able to share your briefings with the committee in advance of every appearance, that would be very useful. It would make all our lives much easier, I suspect. Not necessarily. Thank you for the offer to share a chart with us. It is the first time that we have had that offer from the cabinet secretary before the committee. Are there any other questions from committee members at this stage? If not, I thank the cabinet secretary and his team for coming in. At this stage, I will suspend the meeting and move into private session.