Chamber and committees

The Government raised a number of things in advance of this meeting. Although there is a broad explanation of the dialogue, some particular points arise. We will have an opportunity to debate the subject this afternoon, but if there are still questions after that, it may be that we will wish to write to the Government about them.

One issue that we encounter with LCMs is that, very often, the two Governments decide that they are happy, but there are still potential questions for Parliament, given its role in oversight and scrutiny. Maybe we should have a look at the answers that are forthcoming and then decide via an exchange of email whether further correspondence after this afternoon’s debate would be in order. That is my suggestion.

In line with my entry in the register of members’ interests, I note that I am a company director and the sole shareholder of a company that has retail interests. It is a non-trading, holding company, which holds intellectual property for retail businesses. I am also a member of two trade unions—Community and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and of the Federation of Small Businesses.

I hope that everyone was impressed with how slick that was.

I am pleased to serve on the committee again, as I did in the previous session of the Parliament when I was latterly, albeit briefly, committee convener. I am happy to share any insights from the prior committee’s work, but it is up to members whether they choose to heed that or whether we choose to do our own thing in the new session. I look forward to our work.

I think that the letter sets out that the Government has changed its position; it does not really set out why it has done so. It will be useful to hear the minister set that out this afternoon. If no explanation is forthcoming, it might be useful to get a response in writing.

In terms of my background, there were two components to my career prior to entering the Parliament. I started my career working as a management consultant, primarily focusing on the financial services sector, which gave me an insight into that. For the eight years prior to entering the Parliament, I ran my family’s retail business. That background gave me two distinct and quite interesting alternative views of the economy; both elements had a strong private sector focus.

Regarding the committee’s focus, I think that the overarching view of committee members at the end of the previous session was that there had maybe been some missed opportunities and that there was an opportunity for the committee to look at more structural issues in the economy.

The technology point has already been raised. There was a frustration that, given the importance of artificial intelligence and other technologies and the changes that they bring, there had been insufficient focus on those areas by the committee.

There were some broad labour points—not just about skills but, given the ageing population, about thinking about the nature of the workforce and types of work.

There are some broad infrastructure points. I do not think that the Parliament necessarily focuses in the right ways on infrastructure, which is absolutely the connective tissue of the economy.

Likewise, we need to look at really important and stark points around security and resilience, particularly when we consider the economy. An overarching point is about how we are getting investment into the economy.

Finally, the big piece is energy in the round. The energy transition is upon us, and the world is changing how it supplies and generates energy. Scotland is absolutely at the fulcrum of that change with its heritage and strength in the oil and gas sector and its transition to renewables. The committee should think about how we interact with and discuss that issue, and we must ensure that we are led by the evidence.

The decision as set out makes a lot of sense. However, it is important to put a couple of things on record. First, we do not always get that much notice about LCMs, and there are various reasons for that. It is important that the committee takes the opportunity to scrutinise LCMs, even if we do not have time to take as much evidence as we would want.

There is a difference between practice and the requirements of the standing orders. The standing orders do not prescribe precisely the nature of the evidence. Sometimes, it is worth being fleet of foot so that we can at least undertake scrutiny, even if it is not as full as we might like, given the time afforded to us by the timing of the LCM.

The other thing for the committee to note on this LCM in particular is that, when it comes to the economy, the way in which the Scotland Act 1998 is framed and understood by the Scottish Government means that there is a degree of overlap as to whether such matters are devolved or reserved. Therefore, there is a high likelihood that we will have further LCMs that may straddle that understanding. I hope that my language is sufficiently diplomatic, especially given that the issue clearly touches on matters such as the security of supply chains and national security.

Those are just points to note. As I say, I am content, and I understand the approach that has been taken. However, such things—not being provided with the notice that many of us would like—have a habit of flaring up.

I agree with everything that Stephen Imrie said. The other element to consider is that aspects of legislation that have not been seen in advance are sometimes spotted as touching on devolved competence—or there is emergency legislation. It is almost as if there is an 80:20 rule. There are the LCMs that are expected, but there are others—although perhaps the figure is not as high as 20 per cent. This is not necessarily the first time that we have had an LCM without getting the notice that we might want. Such issues and concerns were raised at least two or three times in the previous parliamentary session.