Chamber and committees

I do not disagree with what you say. The point that I was trying to make is that there is nothing preventing somebody who has done a music degree—often, they will be producing their own music—from switching tack and doing something different. I know that, because I did it. That was 30 years ago, when it was arguably even less common than it is now.

I see that Mark Logan wants to pop back in before I go on to my final question. Mark, do you want to pick up on this thread?

Good morning, everybody. It is nice to join you, albeit remotely. I have a couple of short questions.

The first is for Mark Logan. I am interested in your comments about the pace of change, creativity, entrepreneurs and so on. What can be done to utilise the creatives? I say that as someone who initially did a music degree and who quickly came to understand it, and describe it, as precision engineering, due to the accuracy required to produce certain types of music.

Subsequently, I did a postgraduate qualification in IT. I was told at the time, and then at the company for which I eventually went to work, that I had been recruited because of evidence of creativity. The company wanted that creativity in its IT department. Therefore, it seems to me that, in business and in the Government, at whatever level, there is not necessarily the understanding of how creative the creatives are, and how useful they can be in IT.

I declare that I am an interested party, as I have a current complaint.

Section A of the consultation, which is on potential regulatory models, requires strong responses from consumers, particularly those such as me who have recent direct experience of the current system. At present, I believe that the system is heavily biased against the consumer’s interest.

Will the minister meet me to hear about my experience? Will the Government issue an urgent call to Consumer Voice to ensure that not just the lawyers and their representative bodies, but consumer voices, are heard?

To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that the views of consumers are adequately heard in its consultation on legal services regulation reform. (S6O-00339)

Given that the debate is being held during COP26, I will raise a point regarding our net zero and climate change ambitions. The Scottish Government has published some excellent guidance on many aspects of procurement that will effectively influence our future direction and enable judgment to be applied when awarding public sector contracts. Invitation-to-tender documents specify the criteria—such as price—to be used in the award of contracts and the weighting to be given to those criteria. I simply note here that there is varying practice on the criteria when aligned to net zero ambitions. For some contracts clear criteria and weightings are sought, but that is not consistently applied. It is my opinion that all our actions in the award of public sector contracts should contribute to reaching net zero. With that in mind, will the minister consider reviewing contract award criteria to ensure that minimum criteria are applied consistently across the board? I do not underestimate the work required to make public procurement fit for a net zero purpose or to ensure fair work, but that is vital, for there can be no fair work if we destroy the prospects for work.

As was mentioned earlier, I am confident that there is wide agreement across the chamber that, as we come out of the pandemic, we will not revert to business as usual. We need to build a future for new circumstances. One of the key requirements will be to encourage much more innovation and entrepreneurial activity in Scotland. We need the development of new, more resilient local supply chains, all of which will have implications for procurement policy and our fair work agenda. We need to ensure that new entrants to the marketplace are not disadvantaged because they lack a long track record. Willie Rennie brought that matter up earlier, and this is one of the few occasions when I agree with what he said. We need to prioritise opportunities for innovation and new thinking that help us meet our obligations to current and future generations and we need to hear new voices that are not thirled to the ways in which things have aye been.

We need to ensure that fairness goes beyond traditional patterns of employment and we need to break down continuing barriers faced by women in business, from those in part-time employment to entrepreneurs. A matter of particular concern to me is the lack of systematic impact analysis by sex from many business-related organisations. In fairness, that should apply to other characteristics, to encourage diversity generally. Does the minister agree that the more evidence that we have, the better the chance of subsequently developing policies that tackle barriers to participation? Will he consider looking at conditionality in procurement contract awards to increase diversity, which leads to greater economic contributions?

It is to the great credit of the Scottish Government that it has been addressing for some time the need for better procurement policies and the need to develop policies regarding fair work. The recent expansion of the fair work criteria from five to seven demonstrates the ambition to keep updating and developing forward-looking policies. In many respects, although much progress has been made, we will never reach the end of our journey. In a world with faster and faster rates of technological, social, labour market and environmental change, we are all challenged—all of us here—to ensure that our policy frameworks remain relevant to the world that we are in by shaping by our actions to fit.

I am delighted to hear Stephen Kerr speaking in the chamber, but he must understand that the Scottish Government has an obligation to spend public money effectively, so the screening processes must be rigorous. Surely there are two sides to the equation.

I am sure that Mr Johnson recognises that the Scottish Government is fatally constricted by not having borrowing powers. When we are faced with a crisis such as the current one, being able to borrow in order to grow the economy is utterly fundamental. Will Mr Johnson join me in asking the UK Government to grant those powers?

It is clear that the serious governance flaws stem back to 1978 and the UK Government legislation of that time that enshrined the conflict of interest. I note that the cabinet secretary said:

“Fully adopting the recommendations will require legislative change and it will first require the precise mechanisms for that change to be determined.”

I have a couple of questions. Can the cabinet secretary give any further guidance on that further legislation and any challenges around it? Furthermore, is he issuing interim guidance to boards regarding the conflict of interest, or is he relying on the OSCR report?

In my constituency of Falkirk East, many retailers did a great job of being innovative throughout the pandemic, and demonstrated their fundamental value to our communities. However, at present, small local retailers are at a huge disadvantage compared with online-only giants, who can avoid local taxation, often do not pay anywhere near their full share of national taxes and do not invest in local communities.

Will the minister write to the UK Government to ask whether it has managed to make any progress to ensure that online giants such as Amazon pay their fair share of taxes and provide value to society? Will he also look at ways in which the Scottish Government can encourage large companies such as Amazon to increase their contributions to very worthy causes in Scotland?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to publish the James Hutton Institute report on the impact on human health and the environment arising from the spreading of sewage sludge on land. (S6O-00262)