Chamber and committees

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the programme for government in an answer to the convener. In your speech about the programme for government, when you talked about trying to encourage economic growth, you said that it is the Scottish Government’s mission

“to create the best conditions for entrepreneurs to seize the opportunities”—[Official Report, 2 June 2021; c 17.]

to increase production and innovation and to create jobs. Obviously, you will have seen statistics from the Scottish Fiscal Commission and, I am sure, will have had advice from your new council of economic advisers, which, I think, is providing some evidence about the period from July to the autumn. Obviously, you are not going to tell us the detail of the budget, and I would not expect that, but where are they trying to focus your attention when it comes to the priorities for that economic growth?

I have two more questions. First, you mentioned the tourism sector. A lot of tourism bodies, particularly in Perthshire, tell me that it is difficult to get people to take up jobs that are there, because they do not actually want the jobs, which is different from not having the right skills. If we look at the statistics for employment and unemployment, we can see that a latent workforce is out there but, in many cases, those people do not want the particular jobs that are on offer, and that is different from the skills agenda. What is the Scottish Government doing to address that problem?

Thank you. My last question is about tax revenues. Obviously, we have heard from many witnesses to the committee that there are demographic issues in relation to Scotland’s ageing population, so the working population is being squeezed. With regard to the overall budget, where is the greatest possibility, from a Scottish perspective, for raising tax revenues that, in turn, would help with Government spending?

That is very helpful indeed. On the reskilling issue, I have heard people such as Sandy Begbie talk about the young persons guarantee from the perspective that, although young people have particular issues at this time, many other issues involve the need to reskill people who have been in the economy, in a job, are perhaps still on furlough but are not necessarily going back to the job that was there before the pandemic. Can I press you a little on what priorities you feel need our attention when it comes to upskilling those who will probably find it very difficult to get back into the labour force?

Everybody in the chamber, whatever our political views—and, my goodness, they are diverse—and however we all voted on Brexit, fully acknowledges that we are currently facing one of the most difficult periods that there have ever been in British and Scottish politics.

It is true that Brexit has been difficult and, for some people, it has been deeply troubling. It has been emotive and it has also been divisive in exactly the same way that the independence referendum was in 2014. However, as we try very hard to take an objective stance in the current debate, we should remember two things, the first of which relates to Daniel Johnson’s point that we have a democratic duty as politicians to deliver what people voted for, even if we do not personally like the result of that vote.

Secondly, as Maurice Golden said, voters want us to focus on the outcome that works for them. I believe that they want Governments to co-operate, most especially during the dark days of the Covid pandemic, and to listen carefully to the sectors, most especially in business and industry, on which our economic recovery depends.

We should also acknowledge that in 2014, when the people of Scotland made a decision to stay in the United Kingdom, and in 2016, when the people of the UK made a decision to withdraw from the EU, they made those decisions after the terms of the plebiscite had been agreed. That agreement embodies an acceptance by both sides that the result of the referendum would be respected.

I have said many times in this chamber during Brexit debates that I was very disappointed with the result of the EU referendum. I will be the first to acknowledge this afternoon that Brexit has exacerbated some of the issues that Scotland faces. However, it is neither fair nor accurate to say that Brexit is the sole cause of all the pressures in the economy. Indeed, it is completely disingenuous to suggest that.

Willie Rennie and Richard Leonard made very balanced speeches. I do not agree with some of what they said, but they both argued that this is not a simple situation. Brexit has undoubtedly had implications for visas and therefore for some movement of labour, but there are several other reasons for the current situation. Conservative members have cited comments from key figures in the haulage industry who have made it very clear that the industry has been suffering from labour shortages for some time, partly because of the age profiles of their drivers and partly because the Covid situation has meant that, understandably, fewer drivers have been able to, or wanted to, work away from home. The pandemic has also obviously had an impact on the ability of those who train and test drivers to provide the necessary certificates and licences.

Those issues are by no means unique to the UK. The driver shortfall across Europe is 400,000-plus, and that includes countries that remain in the EU. Poland and Germany are among those that are suffering many of the same workforce and recruitment difficulties.

Liam Kerr pointed out the hypocrisy of the motion in its excoriating attack on the UK Government. That Government has secured 70 different trade deals, and the SNP did not vote for even one of them, including the deal that was finally agreed with the EU to avoid a no-deal situation. The SNP continues to forget conveniently that that final deal, with all its imperfections, had the support of key players in Scotland, including Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the heads of the UK’s four national farmers unions, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Scotch Whisky Association and major companies such as Diageo. Those organisations are not arguing about abstract and finer points of the constitution; they are looking at what is best for their sectors in terms of stability in the future and the securing of jobs and investment, especially at a time when our economy is so fragile. [Interruption.] No, I will not take an intervention, if you do not mind. Like them, the Scottish Conservatives believe that, after all the tortuous negotiations, the Brexit deal was the only viable means of an orderly exit from the EU.

However, the SNP persists in claiming that the current situation is far better for fostering a debate about another independence referendum, even though we have heard several times today about the warnings that its own advisers are giving. Some of those warnings cause little surprise, given the divisions that have been created in the difficult period of the upsetting of 50 years of UK economic integration with the EU.

What would it be like if we separated from the United Kingdom? Not one single piece of respected, independent economic analysis have I seen that provides any evidence whatsoever that breaking up the union would provide Scotland with the same economic benefits and stability that it has now. There would not be the sums that point to fiscal stability, nor the drivers of economic growth—particularly those relating to economies of scale—that the UK brings. There would not be the same opportunities for investment, nor the safeguards that the union provides via UK spending—and, my goodness, how much we have needed that guarantee in the current pandemic.

I say again: you cannot keep demanding reruns of referenda just because you do not like the outcome. I happen to think that that view is shared by a large proportion of the electorate. They are fed up with the constant tone of grievance that, sadly, has become the defining element of the SNP.

I begin by acknowledging the very difficult job that confronts the Government on the issue—first, because it is often necessary to take quick decisions in response to a virus that shows absolutely no concern whatsoever for the pressures that are placed on the economy or on society, and secondly, because it is not easy to balance health concerns against the needs of the economy and society’s wellbeing. However, what is absolutely crucial, whatever is decided, is the need to earn public trust, and therefore consent, when it comes to ensuring that the public will adhere to the necessary guidelines with a responsible approach.

I will reflect on that, given what the business community has been saying. The First Minister reminded us yesterday that we should all be united in our aim to tackle this awful disease and to minimise the risks that are associated with it by controlling situations in which there is likely to be a risk of increased transmission.

Businesses agree with that, but they make the point—quite rightly—that the precise aims of measures must be clear. In the case of vaccination passports, there would have to be supportive and compelling evidence that their introduction would, first, be clearly understood; that it would, secondly, be accepted by the public as the right measure; and that it would, thirdly, be backed up with the necessary resources to secure effective implementation.

Those are perfectly fair questions to ask—most especially of an SNP Government that yesterday shifted the goalposts again. The First Minister claimed that that shift, to allow for a grace period up to 18 October, was made precisely because the Scottish Government had been listening to business. However, the fact of the matter is that the business community is saying exactly the same now as it has been saying for weeks, which is that vaccination passports are not the answer.

Scrutiny of proposals is critical not only in order to foster public awareness and understanding but—which is most important—to produce a cogent case with evidence for how an initiative will work.

If Mr Mason does not mind, I will not give way on this occasion.

On vaccination passports, however, which we debated earlier in the month, there was no time whatsoever for adequate scrutiny—not least because the Scottish Government admitted that it was still in the process of collecting the necessary evidence, which was a concern that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee raised. In that debate, on 9 September, my colleague Murdo Fraser rightly set out that, although some parties in the chamber have—as Mr Cole-Hamilton just said—a long-standing opposition to any form of ID policy, the Scottish Conservatives could, on a pragmatic basis, say that there might be a case for vaccination passports on a very short-term basis, but only if there was proven evidence that they could be beneficial in the war against Covid. That case has never been made, however, and worse still is that it has never been scrutinised.

That is why the business community has been so quick to express its concerns about several key issues, including how QR codes would be read, policing costs, whether vaccination passports work better than negative lateral flow tests, for how long vaccination passports would be necessary and whether they would perpetuate inequalities.

There is a legal challenge because of all the unanswered questions. Two members have outlined what the hospitality and night-time industries are saying about that. It is absolutely imperative that we listen, because there are serious concerns—not just about workability, but about the potential legal challenge. Of course, yesterday, the First Minister had finally to acknowledge the deep-seated concerns, but all she has done is muddy the waters even more.

The real problems are the policy inconsistencies, the legal issues and the lack of on-going evidence, so we call on the SNP-Green coalition—half of which is fundamentally opposed to vaccination passports—to halt the programme.

I will pick up the point that you just raised about looking at spending in the round and trying to get an overview. One of the greatest challenges in politics today is to win the trust of the public—especially the taxpaying public—with regard to where their money is being spent, who is accountable for that spending and what we, as a Parliament and as a committee, are going to do if anything goes wrong with that spending. What are your views on the concern that some MSPs, members of the public and bodies have that, sometimes, we make our judgments about scrutiny and public spending in relation to a specific committee and, as we are doing just now, on specific issues, rather than having a mechanism outwith the budget process that allows us to see the whole thing in the round? That is why I asked you about a finance bill. I acknowledge the concerns about how that would articulate with the Scotland Act 1998.

Do you have a view on whether any other procedures are required to enhance our ability to take an overview of Scotland’s public finances, whether that comes down to better forecasting or whatever? I am interested in what you feel about that.

I have one more question that picks up on the point about additional scrutiny. Last week, the convener asked the Deputy First Minister about how easy it is, when we come to the national performance framework, to drill down on something that is national spend and something that is local government spend. That is very difficult, because it is not easy to see where the money is being spent and who is accountable for it.

Do you have any recommendations for how we could improve the process of understanding where the budget lines are for local government, as opposed to national spend?

I entirely agree with the convener that ensuring transparency and accountability is the biggest job that this committee faces and—dare I say it?—the biggest job that the Parliament faces.

Auditor General, you and your predecessor Caroline Gardner have made clear that you are keen to see additional processes that would enhance transparency. You mentioned the summer revisions and talked about what the Public Accounts Commission could do. Are there structures in this Parliament that could be improved, to enhance scrutiny and accountability? I know that you cannot comment on public policy, but will you say whether a finance bill—a procedure that has not been customary in this Parliament—is a possible way of improving transparency and accountability?