Chamber and committees

Thanks for your excellent submissions; they have been helpful.

Michael Clancy, can you say more on the question that we asked about scrutiny, transparency and accountability challenges and how we, as a parliamentary committee, can engage in that area? You have explained the sheer number of potential legislative changes that we might be facing. Could you talk about the capacity of third sector and business organisations to give their views on the process for those changes?

Earlier, we heard that it is difficult for third sector organisations to cope with the scale of change that might take place. That is an issue for this committee, because the parliamentary process enables us to get views from third sector organisations. The issue of timing is important in that regard. Given the time constraints that we face and the sheer complexity of the situation, how can we improve how we take evidence? What would be your top issues? Would the issues of interparliamentary or intergovernmental work be at the top of your agenda?

Thanks. It would be really interesting to pick up on that.

I have a quick supplementary question to ask David Thomson. You talked about different standards in different parts of the UK impacting negatively on producers. Towards the end of your written submission, you state:

“If one UK nation increased or lowered product standards in their own jurisdiction there might be areas where enhanced protection might, in principle, be desired.”

What did you mean by that?

What do you mean by “enhanced protection”?

To draw a parallel, you have also talked about trade outwith the UK. For example, concerns have been raised about potential new UK trade deals with other parts of the world that have lower environmental standards. How would that impact on UK products? You have mentioned your worries about standards changing in the UK, but what about imports from the rest of world, where the standards might be lower? What about the impact of that on products that are produced here? Are you concerned about that?

Sorry, that was probably my fault. I looked at the comments that you made about the deposit return scheme and I put both witnesses together on the issue of drinks and made assumptions about the kinds of drinks that were involved.

Alison Douglas, can you also comment on the point that I made at the start about different policies in different parts of the UK and the challenges for implementation?

Can you give us examples of other environmental challenges? You have talked about EU moves to ramp up environmental standards; do you have concerns about other products in respect of which the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 could cut right across Scotland’s moves to meet environmental standards, either for nature or net zero reasons?

I have a question for Michael Clancy about the references to the domestic advisory group and civil society forum that he made in his submission. I was not aware of them before, but I note that an advert in the middle of October invited people to register their interest if they wanted to be a member of the UK domestic advisory group and civil society forum. Can you say a little more about that? The bodies are clearly an attempt to broaden involvement from third sector organisations and trade unions, to enable them to have some sort of say in the process, but they have not had a lot of public awareness. You talked about annual meetings not being appropriate, because meetings need to be more regular. Could you say something about the potential opportunities that come from membership and to what extent the bodies have relevance in Scotland? Are they established primarily at a UK level? The advert says that meetings

“will rotate between all four nations of the United Kingdom”.

I was not aware of the domestic advisory group and civil society forum before. Have they gone under the radar for us? Will they be significant?

No, not at this point. The meeting that we had was a high-level discussion with a big attendance. Culture Counts commented that we could have about 20 different culture groups. We are thinking about the whole range: crafts, fashion and textiles, design, photography, writing and publishing, heritage, cultural education and performing arts. It is still a huge section, even without thinking about the CPG on music. We are not worried that we will overlap.

Thanks very much, convener. We want to set up the group after a lot of reflection from the members of the group and after learning from experiences, particularly during the previous parliamentary session. The term “culture” covers a huge number of areas, and there was a very strong suggestion that it is too broad a term for a cross-party group. For example, the Scottish Government has separate culture and creative industries departments, with a full department for each with different aims, objectives and strategies. We therefore think that the proposed group would make a lot of sense in relation to exploring accountability issues.

There is also a real grass-roots sense about it, looking at the two areas of communities and the industrial sector. There is the publicly funded sector of libraries, museums and national performing companies, and we have lots of community arts and culture groups that want to have a voice and speak to us in the context of a CPG rather than through a committee. We also have the industrial sector of publishing companies, record companies, entrepreneurs and the media. There is therefore a huge area to cover.

We have spoken to Culture Counts, which represents the sector, and we think that, if we had two cross-party groups, that would allow both MSPs and the sector to have a proper focus on both areas. I reassure the committee that we are not necessarily planning on having eight CPG meetings a year, as opposed to four, though. In the first year, we are thinking of experimenting with having two meetings for each of the CPGs, with the opportunity to have more, depending on the members of our groups.

I think that that will work really well, and there is a lot of enthusiasm for it. I hope that the committee will be okay with it, because we think that it is a good idea.