Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. Thank you very much for that comment, because that is exactly what we want to achieve. Even in conversations that we have had during initial informal meetings when considering setting up the CPG, a large amount of opportunity has presented itself, with companies saying that they want to bring everyone’s attention to and increase the level of interest in building boats and ships in Scotland. There is so much work out there to be done. If we tie all the ideas together, we can seriously increase the number of jobs and amount of employment in the sector. There could be more manufacturing of recreational boats, and skills and apprenticeships—that is just one example. From fish farming to lifeboats and from offshore support vessels to bigger vessels such as ferries and cruise ships, there is a huge area of opportunity for us, so it is crucial that we tie together adjacent CPGs to ensure that we make the most of it.

Thank you very much. I am excited about the opportunity.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for the invitation to address the committee.

The proposed establishment of a cross-party group on maritime and shipbuilding is the first time that such a group has been proposed in the history of the Scottish Parliament. It is a vital exercise. At more than 6,000 miles, Scotland’s coastline is longer than that of the People’s Republic of China. For centuries, the maritime and shipbuilding sectors have been critical to the prosperity of the country.

As we look towards the future—particularly given the climate emergency—the economic and social opportunity that the sector presents to Scotland is very significant. I therefore think that it is timely to consider the setting up of this CPG.

I initially gauged opinion informally during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—in Glasgow. I was able to secure the support of 15 colleagues for the creation of the cross-party group, which makes 16 members in total. We also secured the agreement of Maritime UK to provide the secretariat.

I am very pleased about the level of cross-party support for the objectives and intent of the CPG, which are to ensure that we have a focal point in our national Parliament to allow industry, trade unions and other stakeholders from across the country to come together and create a sounding board for the progress and development of the industry in Scotland. It will mean that we can be more responsive as a Parliament, hold the Government to account in relation to what it is doing to promote the sector, and give industry—and the workforce within it—a voice in the Parliament. On all those fronts, a cross-party group makes for a very good and worthwhile exercise.

There is a similar cross-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair in the House of Commons at Westminster, with which we hope to have a degree of collaboration in developing responses to things such as the United Kingdom Government’s national shipbuilding strategy, a new version of which is due to be published in the coming weeks. That is another reason why the setting up of a CPG is a timely exercise.

Absolutely. The list is just a starter for 10, and, as the CPG becomes better known, we will be more than happy to invite a broader cross-section of participation from across the industry.

Maritime UK has kindly and proactively agreed to steward the CPG by providing a secretariat. We have also had interest from BAE Systems, which is the biggest shipbuilding company in Scotland; the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, which is a long-standing professional body for the industry; the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions; Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, which is the public sector procurement agent for CalMac Ferries; and academia. It is a good cross-section of interest. We have had interest, subsequently, from Malin Marine Services, which is an SME that is operating in the shipbuilding and engineering sector in Glasgow. Interest is growing at a fair pace, and we hope to continue to elicit support as we go forward.

Cabinet secretary, you mentioned that you attend the COVID-19 Recovery Committee relatively frequently. That is a fair point with regard to how the Parliament interacts with the Executive and holds it to account, especially under such unusual circumstances. However, the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, in its submission to this committee, suggested that using the affirmative procedure as a default measure, as opposed to the made affirmative procedure, would enable

“the Committee to gather views from affected stakeholders before proposed policy changes are made into the law”,

as

“This process is an essential part of the Committee’s role in delivering the Scottish Parliament’s mission statement to create good quality, effective and accessible legislation.”

Furthermore, we have heard evidence about greater parliamentary scrutiny ahead of the measures coming into force. It was suggested that we have a fairly regular parliamentary debate that would enable greater discussion and comment on regulations, and questions to the minister on the use of the made affirmative procedure. The idea is that regular parliamentary time would be allotted to enable us to discuss instruments under the made affirmative procedure. Ministers make statements in the Parliament, but those are general and cannot, by their very nature, home in on the technicalities of some of the issues that need to be debated in respect of the made affirmative procedure. Perhaps the Government might consider looking at the parliamentary timetable in order to make chamber time available specifically for close scrutiny and discussion of instruments under the made affirmative procedure before they are brought into force.

It has been an interesting discussion, so far. Although this inquiry itself might initially appear quite a dry exercise, it has been very interesting, certainly for me as a new MSP, to look at the broader historical issues. Some of our witnesses have described the broad trends of the tension between the executive and legislature over decades as being a source of contention, which has been interesting to reflect on, and, obviously, we have seen the recent change in the manner in which the Government legislates by using the made affirmative procedure to bring forward a large number of instruments.

Based on your experience as an Opposition and as a Government member, looking at how things have played out in the past two years or so, how do you feel that the made affirmative procedure has worked when it comes to the quality of the measures that have been introduced? We are aware of the necessity for them and of the requirements for speed but, on reflection, are you aware of any instances in which that might have led to things going awry for want of greater scrutiny or greater patience in looking at the practical implications of how those measures were going to work?

I have read the clerks’ documentation on the regulations and reflected on the real-life implications of some of the measures that were brought in over the festive period. Among the constituents who came to me over that period were representatives of the Ambassador Theatre Group, which had short-notice cancellations of its productions over Christmas, such as the pantomime at the King’s theatre. The upshot has been that, because of the insufficient specification of support to that sector, in January, employees have been left for up to five weeks without pay, which is a pretty horrendous situation. It is an example of how the made affirmative procedure has perhaps been inappropriately used. There has not been true scrutiny to ensure that the regulations were watertight and that the potential negative effects on the public were avoided. I am therefore minded to express dissatisfaction with the use of the made affirmative procedure.

There is a broad reflection to add that is not just about the made affirmative procedure, as certainly some of our witnesses have argued that adequate scrutiny of the primary legislation is also a key part of robustness. For example, Professor Stephen Tierney mentioned that

“The real problems are not simply with the made affirmative procedure downstream but with the fact that the primary legislation that created the powers was itself drafted and passed very quickly without adequate scrutiny.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 14 December 2021; c 4.]

It is clear that, once the instruments pile up, the initial legislation becomes so distorted that it is hard to understand what it means for parliamentarians or members of the public.

Witnesses have discussed the accessibility of instruments that have been subject to multiple amendments. Sir Jonathan Jones QC and the Law Society of Scotland have both suggested that the publication of consolidated versions of instruments that have been subject to multiple amendments would be an improvement on the current procedure. Would you consider introducing that? Will the Government take away and reflect on that suggestion in respect of improving transparency and the implications of making multiple changes to legislation so that there is greater understanding of what it means, despite all the changes?

I appreciate that response. Perhaps that is something for the committee to consider as we look at the continuous improvement of the Parliament and its procedures.

More generally, there was discussion earlier about skeleton bills and the trend of that form of legislation becoming increasingly attractive to Government, because it allows broad general principles to be outlined without necessarily having specific actions detailed in legislation. That leaves a lot of leeway for ministers to subsequently direct where they want to go, using secondary legislation. That perhaps presents some complications.

One example that springs to mind is the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which had a number of amendments made to it with the introduction of franchising, local authorities setting up their own municipal bus companies and bus service improvement partnerships. The latter have, in general, a public-private partnership model that is a bit more light touch and is more akin to the status quo of the deregulated model. Even though those provisions were all in the legislation, the Government and Transport Scotland have resourced and pushed forward the bus service improvement partnerships only. The other options for local authorities to pursue are not resourced in a meaningful way. That is an example of legislation that was drafted in a skeleton sense only. The way in which it has been implemented and driven by secondary legislation means that a lot of the provisions in the legislation have not been taken forward.

I wonder whether the Government will reflect on skeleton bills, how they are designed, the fact that their increasing use has been a long-term trend across Governments for decades and whether they lead to problems later on, when a Parliament expresses a view that things should happen in a country but they do not happen. What does the Deputy First Minister think about the general principle of there being problems with the tendency to use skeleton bills and there being provisions put in place that are not taken forward in secondary legislation?

I have significant concerns with the policy, which I think represents abuse of power and Executive overreach; I also think that there has been insufficient scrutiny and insufficient evidence that it will achieve its desired effects. For all those reasons, this is an inappropriate use of the procedure and should be resisted.

I am inclined at the very least to write to the lead committee on justice policy and to the minister dealing with the drug deaths emergency. The instrument flies in the face of public health approaches to management of the issue, particularly given that no evidence exists that illicit substances have been responsible for any deaths in prison in Scotland—the primary driver of drug-related deaths in prison is prescribed medications. We need to make greater efforts to understand the nature of the problem, rather than jumping the gun, particularly given that the Scottish Prison Service has a problematic issue with deaths in custody at the hands of prison officers.

Professor Tierney, do you have any thoughts on that?