Chamber and committees

I will watch with interest how the Opposition parties, despite their softer stance today, vote on the motion, which focuses on Scottish business, its employees, growing the jobs market and developing the wider economy.

I have some sympathy for the calls from the Labour Party in Scotland for an industrial strategy, and I look forward with interest to hearing how Labour will protect economic development in the light of the threats that are posed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the Subsidy Control Bill, because Labour’s answer is always that Westminster knows best.

The Tory amendment, despite the undoubtedly well-intentioned acknowledgement from Liz Smith, fundamentally seeks to remove the wording regarding the impact of Brexit on Scottish business and ignores the problems that have been created by Tory policies on immigration. I gently warn the Scottish Tories that they will not be forgiven for sitting supine and soporific as they allow the charlatan who is their leader, Boris Johnson, to inflict that damage.

I will focus on two main areas today, and the first is international competitiveness. I want Scotland to be a leading international player in a number of areas, particularly those that support our net zero ambitions such as developing the hydrogen economy.

We want to be at the top of the food chain in selected emerging technologies, with a higher-wage and higher-skilled economy than there is at the present time. I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to invest an additional £500 million over this parliamentary session for new, good green jobs. However, the consequences of Brexit and, in particular, the deliberate choice of the UK Government in restricting access to labour from Europe present a severe threat to many businesses, not least, as others have mentioned, hospitality, construction and tourism businesses, including those that export and those in new technologies. Surely all MSPs across the parties can add their voice to those of the multiple organisations—such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Royal Society of Edinburgh—that support the call from the Scottish Government for new temporary worker routes.

Brexit harms our productivity, and we can all agree that both Scottish and UK productivity needs to be better. Critically, Brexit reduces the available working-age labour market pool precisely at a time of emerging skills gaps. If we are to be internationally competitive, we need to be able to attract the highly skilled to Scotland as well as train our own population to the highest standards.

My second area of concern relates to how best to serve our international-class businesses across a variety of sectors. In my Falkirk East constituency, that includes businesses such as Piramal Pharma Solutions and Fujifilm. They are reliant on access to high-quality skills development for their staff to ensure that they maintain their competitive edge and that they can continually improve their productivity.

I have previously spoken about the need to pursue excellence, as it is called for by the likes of the Cumberford-Little report, which was authored at the behest of the Scottish Government by the principals of Edinburgh College and the City of Glasgow College and was supported widely across the college sector. They invite us to move beyond competence and to drive up standards in pursuit of excellence. They are not alone; the Scottish director of WorldSkills has made similar calls. We need to heed their calls to ensure that our businesses and their employees have access to the skills that are needed to remain internationally competitive.

I fully support the actions of the Scottish Government, and I hope that it agrees that combined action to mitigate the clear damage that is being done by Brexit and to strive for excellence in skills is part of the way forward for Scotland.

Throughout the pandemic, the First Minister has made difficult decisions on complex situations—[Inaudible.] Recently, we have heard reports that the UK Government is considering withdrawing free access to lateral flow testing, with some senior UK ministers advocating even shorter self-isolation periods. Further, some influential Tory MPs are even calling for an end to all restrictions, regardless of infection rates, on 26 January.

Even in the face of an endemic disease rather than a pandemic, does the First Minister agree that free lateral flow tests must remain a key part of any protection strategy? Will she also reassure those watching that the gradual lifting of Scottish restrictions will continue to be balanced against wider public health needs?

Successive waves of Covid variants have presented different challenges, many of which we have covered today. Further variants may well arise, and I note that the Scottish Government now plans to publish a strategic framework in the next few weeks. Can the First Minister give any further detail on what might be contained in the framework? What research and preparations beyond the immediate priorities are being put in place now?

Good morning. I am finding this evidence session very enjoyable so far, and I thank the cabinet secretary for highlighting the complexity of the process of money being allocated, drawn down and spent, and how that expands from one financial year to the next. Of course, that is all about financial asymmetry, but I also want to explore our own asymmetry.

I had the chance to glance through the report by the three Davids entitled “Options for reforming the devolved fiscal frameworks post-pandemic”, which recommends:

“Given that devolved governments cannot really exercise full control over health policy in the absence of appropriate economic support measures, a feasibility study into making furlough-type support available on a geographical basis should be urgently undertaken and published.”

You also correctly alluded to the fact that things have moved rapidly since some of the recent data came out. Do you have any indication yet of UK Treasury thinking about what type of financial support, such as furlough, could be available if and when the anticipated peak of the current Covid crisis hits us in mid-January?

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the fulsome information—[Inaudible.].

I want to go back a bit and get a better understanding of the breakdown of the additional resource implications, which the convener probed earlier. You have described how the additional Brexit resource cost has gone down as we have moved out of the transition. However, I want to better understand your forecasting for the additional costs in terms of the full-time equivalent head count and the costs that have been triggered by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. In particular, I would like to hear about some of the funds that are being spent directly in Scotland by the UK Government. Perhaps you allude to that in your submission when you talk about

“where the UK Government makes decisions which have a direct impact on devolved areas.”

What specific additional head count, whether triggered by the internal market act or any additional funds, such as the levelling-up fund, have you forecast in your budget for this year? I am not sure whether that is a question for Jackson or David.

It looks as though there are no takers.

I have one more question, which follows on from the point about risks. You correctly highlighted some of the implications around resource funding and for capital funding for the future—in particular, the risks to the national infrastructure mission for local and regional infrastructure.

From a risk perspective, that links directly with economic growth, and productivity is also thrown into the pot. Have you had a chance to give any more flavour to that risk, where there is direct investment by the UK Government in local and regional infrastructure? You might not have had such a chance—my question is simply on the back of the previous discussion in which we were focusing on resource.

That seems ridiculous. That concludes my questions, convener.

I appreciate that it is extremely complex; I absolutely understand that. Thank you for the figures. It is useful to have them on the record.

Given the uncertainty about that and what looks to be an increased provision, do you see a point coming at which you would seek to charge back to the UK Government the costs incurred by the Scottish Parliament because we are, in accounting terms, in uncharted territory in which the new environment may come to be seen as special and beyond our normal operating environment? Have you considered the possibility of charging back or having that discussion? If not, would you consider that?

I have probably asked a question that nobody has thought about, but it may well come to that point if the head count and the additional cost are deemed to be significant.

I want to ask Jackson Carlaw a wee question. You mentioned tax in the light of the additional security requirements for members. What assurances can you give that the tax treatment vis-à-vis benefit in kind will be completely aligned between members of the Scottish Parliament and members at Westminster? You might not have been alluding to that. I apologise if you were not, but I wanted to ask that question.

You are carrying considerable risks. As a new member, I am not sure whether that is commonly understood.

I would like to move on to the medium-term financial strategy, in which you highlight a number of risks. One of those is the risk of

“Fundamental changes to the operation of finance in devolved policy making as a result of the UK Internal Market Act”.

Earlier, we heard from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which has made provision for the scrutiny of changes triggered by that by creating an additional 21 jobs. That has a real cost implication, which the SPCB has done projections on.

Have you quantified that risk, beyond what is in your report? You have highlighted the risk, but what is the probability of its occurrence and what would be the implications if it occurs? It strikes me that the financial implications—from the point of view of real spend and of risk—are not yet sufficiently understood. Can you add some further colour to that?