Chamber and committees

I am happy to give that assurance to Mr Fraser and the committee. I met representatives of the Beer and Pub Association on Friday of last week, and they have shared that correspondence. I can confirm that my officials will be engaged in detailed dialogue. As I hope the committee will appreciate, I would like to have time to consider those points and to have an opportunity to discuss them with both the associations and wider stakeholders before we bring forward proposals for consultation. I want to give the reassurance, however, that we will be engaging constructively and taking each of the points that have been made for detailed consideration.

Again, I recognise that point. I will be candid. We have spoken about multiyear funding, the certainty that it can provide and the opportunities that it can create for developing innovative, intensive and supportive practice. The converse is also true: I fully accept that, when there are delays in awarding of funding, that creates uncertainty and can inhibit delivery on the ground.

We work to ensure that we can finalise awards as quickly as possible. The most candid answer that I can give for why that does not take place is to say that it is simply a reflection of the extremely challenging set of circumstances that we find ourselves in with regard to the public finances. Since I came into post, I have been keen to work with colleagues in the Government to identify ways in which we can address the issue that you identify.

We are all familiar with the fact that our broader funding landscape is dependent on various factors that are not within the direct control of the Scottish Government. That creates challenges with regard to our ability to provide multiyear financing. I want to work with colleagues to address the issue so that, when a budget is allocated, we ensure that the award goes out as swiftly as possible, to provide certainty to partners on the ground.

I assure the committee that, along with my officials, I have considered these matters in considerable detail. As I set out in my statement, if the Government considered it to be possible to withdraw the regulations, that is the approach that we would take.

However, the position is that we have had to bring forward the regulations to comply with the requirements that are set out in the 2021 act. That was a decision by Parliament, and ministers are bound by statute. However, given the significant concerns that have been raised with me since I came into post, I think that it would be far more efficient, effective and, crucially, in the interests of tenants and pub-owning businesses—notwithstanding that we do not have the opportunity, in the view of the Government, to withdraw the regulations—for us to create further space to allow for focused and targeted consultation to seek to address those points, recognising that there is a strong divergence of views on certain issues between the relevant parties. We will seek to create the space to address those points and to build consensus, with the ultimate aim of bringing forward a revised pubs code that can command the confidence of both sides of the sector.

I reiterate my apologies to the committee. As I say, this is an unorthodox approach and is not one that I would have chosen. However, we are bound to comply with the terms of the 2021 act as passed by Parliament.

Good morning. As, I am sure, you can all appreciate, it has been a difficult balancing act to arrive at a Scottish pubs code that fulfils the intention of the 2021 act and meets the regulatory principles while, at the same time, fully addressing the concerns of stakeholders who, on certain matters, are not in agreement.

The task has been made more difficult by the legal challenges to the act, including the interim interdict orders that were in place, which meant that further targeted consultation has not been possible over an extended period of time. The legal challenge concluded only in March 2024, when the United Kingdom Supreme Court refused the petitioner’s application for permission to appeal.

As you know, stakeholders have concerns about the regulations—in particular, about the Scottish pubs code. I have been made aware of real concerns among tenants and pub companies about varying aspects of the code. That concerns me greatly.

I want to be clear that, had it not been for the legal requirement for Scottish ministers to lay the code by the deadline that is set out in section 4 of the 2021 act, which now requires me to lay the code as soon as is reasonably practicable, I would have withdrawn the regulations. I am not able to do that, so I have decided to create space and time for further dialogue on the Scottish pubs code within the tied pubs sector. I will do that by bringing forward an amending instrument, which I intend to lay this week, which changes the coming-into-force date of the code to 2025. That will provide time for Scottish ministers to carry out a further focused and targeted consultation on the Scottish pubs code. I intend to then introduce a further SSI making amendments to the Scottish pubs code.

I will keep the delay to a minimum and will engage with stakeholders to ensure that we can bring the legislation into force as soon as possible. I have already committed to introducing an amending SSI in response to technical issues that were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee.

My intention is to engage fully with stakeholders on specific matters, so that the code delivers more effectively the improvements that the sector wishes to see. The purpose of the code is to improve the position of tied pub tenants. Therefore, it must not be—or be perceived to be—to the detriment of tenants. I should be clear, however, that I need the sector to work with me on this and to do so pragmatically. The Scottish pubs code needs to be fair and proportionate. My aim is for consensus, as far as that is possible.

The shape of the code has largely been predetermined by the 2021 act, which was approved unanimously by Parliament. We will not be reopening policy debates on what the act should have contained or whether legislation should be in place, or, indeed, on the full content of the code. I want to focus on key areas of concern.

I apologise to the committee for the somewhat unorthodox approach that we are having to take. However, I want to give my commitment on the official record that my officials and I will work with representatives of tied pub tenants and pub-owning businesses to improve the Scottish pubs code over the coming months, with a view to a revised code coming into force as early as possible. I expect that to be no later than early 2025.

Once in place, the code will be monitored and enforced by the Scottish pubs code adjudicator. Furthermore, the 2021 act requires that the work of the adjudicator and the code be reviewed within two years, and every three years thereafter. We are obliged, therefore, to continue to ensure that the code is proportionate and in keeping with the obligations of the act.

I welcome any questions, but I hope that the committee will bear in mind my comments in my opening statement and the likelihood that I will be reconsidering points that you have raised.

The employability landscape has moved on since the supported employment review and the individual placement and support review—which the committee has had some interest in—and I think that the committee will recognise that.

I will give that detailed consideration very soon, and I am happy to update the committee in writing about the outcome. I do not want to pre-empt what the outcome will be, but I can provide an update on the thinking that has taken place to date. We recognise the importance and value of specialist support, which will be critical for some disabled people in accessing work.

It is all about taking the data, learning from it and then applying that learning in a way that leads to actual change on the ground. In the fair work evidence plan, for example, there is the monitoring of our progress towards being a fair work nation, and there is also the monitoring and evaluation of our actions in the fair work action plan. There is also the requirement to develop our understanding of the evidence and data that we will need to inform future policy making.

I am always keen to read parliamentary committee reports on any area for which I have portfolio responsibility, but having come into post only very recently, I will be extremely keen to hear the committee’s considered views on this matter. The point that I would make, though, is that this is not something static; it is live. Society develops, and changes occur. As a result, my third point, which was about getting evidence that allows us to understand the evolving landscape and how that can inform future policy development, is going to be key to our meeting the commitment to halving the disability employment gap by 2038.

I am conscious that we are 14 years away from that. If we think back to what the workplace was like 14 years ago—indeed, even four years ago, or perhaps slightly more than that, to take us back to the pre-pandemic period—we can see some of the significant changes that have been made with regard to flexibility. We cannot simply say, “We’ve got a plan and it is going to see us through the next 20 years.” Principles, targets and values are absolutely important, but it is also important to be responsive to societal shifts and changes and new innovation in technologies and take every opportunity to apply that learning and innovation to support our reaching the target.

Would you like to comment specifically on the work that has been undertaken to date, Stephen?

One of the themes that has emerged from the evidence that the committee has taken is that the 2014 act is a good piece of legislation that was formulated on a largely consensual basis when it went through Parliament 10 years ago. There is also recognition that the act sits within a much larger programme of public procurement reform, preceding its introduction and since then.

One of the challenges that remains is around consistency of application, the variation that can exist between different contracting authorities and the perceptions that that can create among suppliers. We have sought to address that through providing a comprehensive suite of guidance, support, training and engagement. For example, on the Public Contracts Scotland website, you will find links to the procurement journey, the supplier journey, and the supplier development programme, to which we contribute funding.

We also keep a suite of guidance up to date, and we are always working to engage with stakeholders on the development of our policy. We recognise that there will always be challenges around the consistency of application, but the legislation provides a solid foundation, and we remain committed to continuing to engage with partners to ensure that we drive forward consistency.

The five pilots have been in place for a number of years. They are operating in different contexts in Clackmannanshire, Fife, South of Scotland, Glasgow and the Western Isles. We have seen real progress, and there has been good engagement with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, which has produced reports on the activities that are taking place in the pilot areas. The committee is familiar with the positive feedback that has been received on increasing the impact of local procurement in some of those pilot areas.

There is not just the five pilot areas to consider. Other areas of Scotland have taken forward community wealth building ambitions. No conversation about community wealth building would be complete without referring to North Ayrshire Council, which was the pioneer in taking forward community wealth building in Scotland. We have seen North Ayrshire’s approach grow to a regional approach, bringing in East Ayrshire Council, South Ayrshire Council, the local health board, the third sector interface and the college. Further progress has been made on the ambitions that are set out in the 2014 act around sustainable and progressive procurement.

Community wealth building legislation is a programme for government commitment. We consulted on the legislation and published an analysis of it last year. We are considering in detail the next steps with regards to the feedback that we received via the consultation.

As the committee will be aware, procurement is just one of the pillars of community wealth building, albeit that it is an incredibly important one. Community wealth building can add value by bringing about strategic coherence across the five pillars, which is one of the reasons why we committed to legislation in the PFG. I could say a huge amount about community wealth building, but I appreciate that that might be straying beyond the specifics of what we are considering this morning.

I respect the autonomy of local authorities in taking the decisions that they feel are best for their areas. They have to operate within the requirements of domestic procurement law.

I will pick up on the point that Graeme Cook made and the point about East Ayrshire that you made, Mr Whittle, and which we discussed. There is always power in an example. We can talk theory, but the examples that other local authorities can provide and sharing examples of best practice can serve to demonstrate what the opportunities are to those local authorities where practice might be inconsistent.

However, I have to respect that it is for individual local authorities to take those decisions. They must operate in a way that is consistent with the requirements of the legislation but, ultimately, decisions must be taken by elected members who are democratically accountable to their electorates.