As the committee recognises in its report, the purpose of section 5, which is entitled “Aims”, is to set the direction of travel for the agency and to give it a clear mandate from Parliament without being overly prescriptive about how it will allocate resources and determine its priorities. I know that members understand the need for a careful balance in section 5, which must illustrate a range of activities that the agency can undertake to deliver its aims while enabling it to be both flexible and responsive.
The worst-case scenario would be for south of Scotland enterprise to consider that it could not act on a matter because its legal advice was that its aims were so tightly drawn as to prevent an action or growth opportunity from being taken up and progressed. That is obviously not a legacy that any of us would want to bequeath to the fledgling enterprise agency.
We should be mindful that the enterprise agency will exist primarily to foster and support sustainable economic development, jobs, investments and businesses, so we want to provide clarity for the new agency on how we expect those to be delivered.
Also, we should not forget that other legislation will continue to apply. We should not duplicate things that are already law, so we should be cautious that where statutory functions exist on a matter, we do not overlay them with different wording in the bill that could be interpreted differently from the original legislation on the same matter, which could lead to all sorts of potential difficulties. That is a technical but, I think, important point.
Nonetheless, the agency should be given, in law, a clear set of aims that Parliament wants it to have. I have listened to the calls for the bill to say more on those aims, especially in relation to environmental matters, so I hope that members will welcome my amendments in the group, as I welcome many of theirs. I will speak to my amendments first and then turn to those of members.
Amendment 7 is a technical amendment that will simply pave the way for my other amendments in the group and those of other members.
Amendment 8 emphasises the agency’s role in supporting economic growth that is sustainable as well as inclusive, and responds directly to the committee’s call for the bill to make specific provision on development of a sustainable economy. This Government absolutely supports sustainability, not least in environmental terms.
Amendments 9 to 11 continue the environmental theme, and emphasise particular issues that the agency might look at to improve the environment of the south of Scotland as part of its work to build a sustainable economy there. I acknowledge and welcome Colin Smyth having signed up to amendments 9 and 10, and I am happy to accept his amendment 11A to my amendment 11. However, I would like to ensure that the wording is appropriate to delivery of our aims. I will be happy to liaise with Colin Smyth in advance of stage 3 to agree whether any technical or drafting changes are required.
I am also happy to support Stewart Stevenson’s amendment 23 and Richard Lyle’s amendment 24. They highlight the critical importance of physical and digital infrastructure, which many consultees mentioned in the initial stages of consideration of the bill. The need to tackle the challenges that are faced in that regard by communities and businesses in the south of Scotland was a key theme that emerged from our pre-legislative consultation and engagement, and it continues to feature in the work that we are doing now.
However, we must acknowledge that those things will not be the primary function of south of Scotland enterprise, nor should we take away other bodies’ existing functions—in particular, in transport, from Transport Scotland, where they primarily lie, regional transport partnerships or local authorities. There is no need for section 5 to mention transport and digital infrastructure twice, important though they are. I therefore invite Colin Smyth not to move amendment 25, if the committee is minded to accept amendment 23, in the name of Mr Stevenson, and amendment 24, in the name of Mr Lyle.
I acknowledge that section 5(2)(f) was too tightly drafted, so I welcome amendment 14, in the name of Gail Ross, which seeks to ensure that support for
“communities to help them meet their”
needs will be considered in the widest sense and not limited to community organisations. If the committee is willing to support amendment 14, amendment 15, in the name of John Finnie, will fall, although I fully appreciate why he wants the agency to support such activity. In my view, section 5(2)(f), thus amended, will provide wide enough powers to support projects for community ownership and transfer without creating unnecessary duplication of existing powers and duties on local authorities, particularly under the provisions in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Communities should be able to expect agencies to provide appropriate support to meet their aspirations. I hope that Mr Finnie agrees with that and does not move amendment 15, and that he will accept my undertaking on the record that the agency will have the power and responsibility to support such activity.
Amendment 22, in the name of Colin Smyth, underlines the importance of there being a range of business models that the agency should support, not least of which are social enterprises and co-operatives. The latter are particularly significant in the dairy farming sector. I am therefore happy to support the amendment, although I would like to ensure that the wording properly reflects the intention, and will advise if any technical changes might be needed at stage 3.
I am not entirely sure of the thinking behind amendment 26, in the name of Claudia Beamish. I welcome her to the committee. I will listen carefully to what she has to say, and respond to her in closing.
I turn finally to Colin Smyth’s amendments 21 on fair work, and 27 and 28 on inequality. I will not repeat what I have said already. The Government has progressed fair work: we support it, and our support is clear and unequivocal. We have already indicated our expectation that the new agency be an exemplar, and have suggested the appropriate ways for that to be achieved in practice.
However, I hope that it will be useful to the committee if I add that I recently had the opportunity to have discussions with senior officials in the STUC, and have undertaken to look at the issues very closely, while remaining cognisant of the fact that elements of fair work are reserved, as I have already argued.
At this stage, I offer meetings to members of the committee who wish to discuss the matter further. I have made the offer to the STUC to engage prior to the time when it will be necessary to lodge stage 3 amendments, so that there will be sufficient time for members to decide whether they need to press matters by lodging stage 3 amendments.
I am keen to make it clear to the committee that we are working with the STUC, and that we are happy to continue to work with members on all those matters. In the light of those undertakings, I ask Mr Smyth not to move amendment 21, on the basis that I will look at the issue further, have more discussions with the fair work convention, and speak with him ahead of stage 3, once we have determined what, if anything, might be possible.
We can all agree that low wages and the gender pay gap continue to be among the most serious issues that hold back the economy of the south of Scotland. Although Government research suggests that there has been improvement, they are serious issues and they persist. That should not be the case in 21st century Scotland. It is my firm belief that the new enterprise agency can achieve the aims of sustainable and inclusive growth only by tackling poverty and inequality, and by advancing social and economic policy. Achieving those aims will, by definition, tackle poverty and inequality.
The agency will be a public body, so it will be subject to other legislation in that regard. For that reason, I do not see a need to put the provisions in amendments 27 and 28 into the bill. There is existing statutory provision to achieve those aims in the UK Equality Act 2010, and in Scottish statutory instruments that have been made thereunder. I said at the outset that the matters are already the subject of law that has been passed by the UK Parliament and Scottish statutory instruments. It is important not to duplicate those for the reasons that I gave earlier, including the risk of creating overlap and confusion.
For those reasons, I suggest that Colin Smyth not move amendments 27 and 28, although I will, of course, listen with interest to what he and all other members say on the amendments.
I move amendment 7.