Chamber and committees

We touched on the workplace equality fund earlier, and there is going to be an independent evaluation of it. A number of different projects were supported over a number of years, and there is learning to be taken from that, which can be applied, and that will inform future policy initiatives that we pursue collaboratively and in partnership. That was a piece of work that we can learn from and which can inform future policy development.

We have spoken about the fair work evidence plan. Part of the process around evidence and data gathering involves informing future policy development.

Yes. In response to a question from Kevin Stewart about the range of funders, I may have touched on ensuring that funding structures incentivise the right kind of outcomes. You have expressed a concern that that is not taking place. I reiterate that I have asked officials to consider the specific instance that you raised and I will be happy to update you. On the broader point about considering any wider issues, again I give a commitment to you personally, Mr Smyth, and to the rest of the committee, that I will look at that and give it detailed consideration, and I will be happy to follow up directly with you.

My first meeting with the convention since my appointment is coming up in the next few weeks. I will be looking to discuss that issue directly with the convention at that opportunity, and I will be happy to update the committee about any outcomes from that.

Absolutely nothing that we can consider within the whole gamut of public policy or how society operates has not been impacted or touched on by the pandemic. I appreciate that that is a statement of the obvious, but the point that you made is that we can move on quite quickly.

I am conscious of some of the evidence that the committee took about concern that some of the flexible working practices—the home working practices—that were developed during the pandemic are not as readily available as they once were. If I recall correctly, one witness described to the committee the pre-pandemic perception that home working was simply not possible until it was required, and it then worked quite effectively and created opportunities for a range of individuals and groups to sustain employment. A concern was expressed that perhaps those options are not as readily available as they were.

We have provided some resource on flexible working. I ask Stephen Garland to pick up on that, to give the committee some information.

Convener, I am conscious that, in responding, I touched on just one very narrow aspect of the impact of the pandemic on workplace practices. In taking forward my engagement with people who have lived experience, I will pose that question directly to them, so that I can develop my understanding of the impact that the pandemic has had. Through that—to touch again on the evidence plan and being informed—we can capture the strongest evidence base for future policy development.

I accept all the points that have been made but, to use an oft-used phrase in Scottish politics, it is important to remember that this is a process and not an event. Quite a lot has happened in the employability landscape since 2018—as we all recognise. The figures—both the disability employment gap and the percentage of disabled people who are now in work—speak for themselves. I do not want to play down the challenges. Throughout this morning, I have sought to recognise that we still have to undertake a significant amount of work to achieve our 2038 target, but progress is being made. It is important that we do not lose sight of that.

The process will be iterative. We will continue to learn and we will continue to apply that learning. We have touched on the reviews that have taken place previously on how the supported employment and IPS reviews are informing our approach and how they are informing no one left behind. There will be further responses to that forthcoming and further consideration.

I reassure stakeholders that we are continuing to consider all the recommendations and that we are working constructively with partners to ensure that we can maximise the impact on the ground and maintain the flexibility that comes with local delivery. I do not know whether Claire Renton wants to add more on the specific point about the 2018 report.

I will answer you very directly, Mr Smyth. There is a concern. I respect the role of the local authorities in the administration of SDS, but I have asked officials to look at the issue, and I will be happy to update you directly—with the rest of the committee, if it is interested.

I welcome that challenge, and I share the ambition that has been expressed. When discussing any aspect of the labour market, we can sometimes reduce things to numbers and just talk about the contribution being made to the overall economy and to employment. First and foremost, work is a fundamental right, and we want to ensure that everyone in Scotland has the opportunity to participate fully in employment for its intrinsic value, not just because of its instrumental outcomes in supporting economic growth and economic activity. I align myself with that ambition, that sentiment and that fundamental belief.

However, I also make it clear that we face a significant challenge. We are contending with ingrained and long-standing societal and cultural barriers, and that issue is reflected in the timescales that we have set out. When we look back at our base year of 2016, we see that, at the time, the Learning and Work Institute, I think, commented that the UK, on its rate of progress, was going to take 200 years to eliminate the disability employment gap. We are talking about halving the gap by 2038.

We have significant progress to make, but we have made tangible progress since 2016; indeed, those 7 percentage points give us the second lowest disability employment gap in the UK. We recognise, though, that there is still work to be done, hence the range of initiatives that we have put in place, whether it be engaging with employers through the public social partnership and the workplace equality fund or our work to roll out our place-based and person-centred approach to employability.

I want to ensure that we set ourselves a target that we can achieve. I am conscious that it is important to deliver it if we are to maintain confidence, but I do not want it to seem that we are not ambitious to go further—we are. This is an ambition that we are all share, and it is an ambition that the Government is committed to working in partnership to deliver.

That is a completely fair, reasonable and legitimate question, and I appreciate that it is one that has been raised at the committee by a number of stakeholders. I also recognise the views that have been expressed by stakeholders with regard to the value that is conferred by multiyear funding. I am conscious that the committee has taken evidence from organisations that have had quite extended periods of funding about the certainty that that provides. I recognise that, when that is not the case, it can have a material impact on delivery on the ground.

That is not a set of circumstances that any of us would want to be in. I make it clear that the Scottish Government would not want to be in those circumstances. However, we have taken the decision about the budget in the context of a very challenging set of public finances. I have recently taken up the post of minister with responsibility for employment. Prior to that, I was the minister with responsibility for public finance for three years, so I was acutely aware of the challenges that we face and the extremely difficult decisions that the Government has had to take to ensure that we can deliver sustainable public services and meet our requirements to deliver a balanced budget.

With regard to the funding that has been allocated, we have worked to ensure that it can help to maintain the priority services on the ground, so that our funding will be consistent with our broader aims and ambitions on employability and fair work, but also with our commitment to halving the disability employment gap.

In response to your first question, the intention is that the amending regulations will be laid on Friday, so the committee will have sight of those.

On your second question, I will be consistent with the views that I have shared with the representatives of tenants and pub-owning businesses whom I have met prior to this morning’s session. I recognise that there are strong views on the pubs code. Given that concern has been expressed that the code, as it is proposed in the regulations, may well be—or is potentially perceived to be—to the detriment of the interests of tenants, I want, in the first instance, to address that specific point. All of us would want to ensure that the legislation that we pass is well understood and is perceived to be of benefit, including of practical benefit.

My approach will be to engage with both parties—I always seek to take such an approach. I am more than happy to engage with any members of Parliament who are interested in this matter, as well as with stakeholders more widely. I want to have further engagement, which will inform the process that we take with regard to a consultation. The intention would be to consult over the summer and to keep the process short, but long enough that we provide an opportunity for all parties to express clear views on the matter. We want that consultation to be focused on addressing the key issues.

The second aspect that I referred to is the fact that there is a requirement in the legislation to review the pubs code. That will afford an opportunity for further broader consideration. I am conscious that the legislation was passed by Parliament more than three years ago. There is a strong desire among stakeholders—especially tenants’ representatives—and on the part of Neil Bibby, who is the member who brought the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill to Parliament, for the legislation to be implemented, and I want to ensure that we can meet those asks.

As I said, in the first instance, my focus will be, through further engagement with the sector and any other interested parties, to understand their concerns fully and more deeply and to see whether we can identify some areas of common ground. After that, as you would expect, we will have a focused consultation. Once that consultation has concluded, we will be in a position to consider the feedback that we have received and to bring forward amending regulations for a revised Scottish pubs code. We recognise that, as per the statutory requirements for review, there will be an opportunity for further consideration.

Although I have said that our aim is to bring a revised code into force no later than early 2025, I would, naturally, want that to happen sooner. What will determine whether that will happen sooner will be the progress that we make over the summer. We want to be in a position—I think that this is a shared view—to bring forward amending regulations as soon as possible, but we want to do so in a way that is consistent with providing an opportunity for targeted engagement and consultation.