Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us.

Ian Duddy, I follow on from Pam Duncan-Glancy’s line of questioning on staffing. How is the commission, at the moment? We have been through Covid and its impact—some of which we have talked about—and, as you outlined in your opening remarks, there has been a significant amount of organisational change, about which I have a few questions. I am interested in how the staff in your team are feeling.

I should declare that, as a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, I will be scrutinising the budget bid that you have put in for next year.

Good morning, Professor Skea. Thank you very much for your opening remarks and what you have said so far. I am interested in exploring an issue that you raised. You said that planning and strategic thinking for the future were a focus in the first phase of your work. In addition to the calls that you have made, we have heard calls for clarity—given the potential lack of clarity at present—on the pipeline of work that we need in order to transition to net zero.

Do you believe that we have done the work that is needed to understand the detail across the different sectors and elements? Do we have that detail or is a lot of work still needed for us to understand where we want to get to, never mind how we will get there?

I am conscious of a potential pitfall or problem if we see just transition as something separate rather than as something that sits alongside Scotland’s other economic and social priorities. Are there dangers in viewing it as something that is not foundational and core to our entire economic planning and strategic thinking? Similarly, are there dangers in viewing the work that we need to do around adaptation as a separate, distinct thing and not something that we see in the just transition space?

Thank you.

My last question for now is about the conversations that you have had in the commission, but also more broadly with the Scottish Government and other stakeholders. Are there any policies or proposals that are potentially red herrings, given the time pressures and what we know are going to be financially constrained times? Are there things that we may need to move away from doing because we know that we can get better impacts and outcomes from focusing on other things?

I have a final brief question. Jim Skea has spoken quite a lot about social infrastructure, and I am mindful of the task relating to having meaningful engagement with those who are most likely to be affected by the just transition, so that they have the opportunity to shape it. Is there a role for the committee in doing something that the commission has not done or is not planning to do in that regard, or vice versa? There is a need for engagement, particularly with people who are not the usual suspects—those who will be affected directly but who might not have an industry voice or be able to input into the structures that we have.

I will be voting against amendment 133. There is no evidence from other jurisdictions that operate similar gender recognition arrangements that gender recognition is being fraudulently applied for to facilitate the commission of offences. In any courtroom setting, a judge can always take all circumstances into account when deciding on sentencing, so there is no need for the proposed aggravator or any specific aggravating factor to be included in the bill. As Jamie Greene has just said, he hopes that the aggravator would act as a deterrent, which, in my opinion, is not something that it is appropriate to put in the bill.

If a person has fraudulently obtained a GRC, they can already be prosecuted and sentenced for that, in addition to any other offence. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Attaching aggravation to the application for and awarding of a gender recognition certificate is deeply problematic.

That is really interesting. There are cultural challenges, too. During recent discussions, some hospitality employers said that they do not see a need for unions because their staff trust them. That tells us something about what an effective voice means in that culture and brings me to a broader issue. We might need to think about cross-sectoral inquiries or work, because there are multiple interpretations and understandings of what fair work is or could be.

We have a particular challenge with the third sector. We know that the Scottish Government can have conditionality and very clear requirements around contracts and funding, but when the same workers are part funded by other funders or have other contractual obligations that do not have the same conditions attached, that puts immense pressure on organisations that are often already stretched. What should we do to ensure that we do not have a two-tier system in which a Scottish Government fund or contract brings one set of conditions but no one knows what happens when funding comes from someone else? If we do not have the employment law levers that we have talked about, how can we avoid a two-tier system?

That is really helpful.

That is really helpful. You spoke about the potential for equal pay claims, and we have talked a little bit about gender pay gaps, but disabled workers and people of colour also face inequalities in the workplace, so there is work for us to do in that space, too.

I think that Patricia Findlay mentioned that other countries have much clearer or more robust fair work indicators. Will you share some information on that to give us an indication of the kind of thing to look for so that we can be more direct in pushing the Scottish Government on that?