Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, minister. I have just a couple of brief questions.

My understanding is that, as a result of this bill, nationals of Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain will qualify for candidacy rights under the proposed new schedule 6A to be inserted into the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. However, those components of the bill are based on a UK treaty having been signed or its likelihood of being signed imminently. The question, therefore, is: has the UK Government indicated that treaties conferring reciprocal candidacy rights are likely to be signed with any other EU country or, indeed, any other countries at all? Would the bill still be able to cope with our obligations under any new treaties that might be signed?

I am looking for clarity. A small number of, say, Portuguese nationals in Scotland—and, of course, across the UK—will have additional rights to stand as a candidate in UK elections. The bill will enable that to happen. If the treaty with Portugal were to be reneged on by the UK Government or if the UK Government were to withdraw from it, would there be nothing in the bill to allow you to continue to extend those candidacy rights to Portuguese nationals in Scotland? Would we have to withdraw those rights, or could they be sustained?

That is very helpful and gives the clarity that I was looking for. If a treaty is signed, rights are extended; if a treaty is withdrawn, rights are withdrawn.

I have a final question. The Scottish Government will be consulting on an ever-increasing elections bill. I hope that that will extend candidacy rights to all EU nationals in similar situations, irrespective of the four treaties. Can you give us an idea of the timing of the elections bill? I suppose that it gets further delayed every time we ask for something to be added, but there you are.

That is helpful. I have no further questions, but I note that the discipline of this committee is also important, given that additional asks from us may add to the consultation, which you keep having to redraft before you can publish it.

That is fine. As things stand, the bill is fit for purpose to cope with that.

Treaties get signed, but they also fall into abeyance and countries withdraw from them. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether it would be open to Scottish Government ministers to continue to extend candidacy rights to schedule 6A nationals even when a treaty came to an end by not exercising the powers in paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule 6A of the 1973 act. “Renege” is perhaps the wrong word, but, if the UK Government were to withdraw from a treaty, would the Scottish Government be keen to ensure that those candidacy rights were not lost? Does the bill contain provisions to ensure that that can happen?

Good morning, Fergus. I have to admit that I am no expert on the wood panel industry in Scotland, as will become apparent. I looked at the committee papers and, because I do not know the sector, it seemed slightly unusual that, where you have listed the organisations that are involved in the cross-party group, you refer to only the Wood Panel Industries Federation and Invicta Public Affairs. Normally, a whole host of organisations and stakeholders come forward to partner with cross-party groups, so that seems quite limited.

I think that you said that there are three main wood panel manufacturers in the UK that are based in Scotland and that they are the key stakeholders in the Wood Panel Industries Federation. I am interested to know whether there are other players in the wood panel industry—perhaps smaller manufacturers that might have a voice and provide different perspectives. I have no idea where large timber merchants fit in. Any more information that you can provide on that would be welcome and helpful.

Due to time constraints, I will roll my two questions together. As I listened to your answers, I was reflecting on the fact that most Scottish consumers do not think about the supply and sustainability of wood, or the economic contribution, job creation or employment involved in the industry. Is there a wider mission for the group to think about how Weegies such as me, who just pitch up and buy their furniture, can learn more about the sector and the contribution that it makes to the economy?

That is very helpful.

But Mr Sim has just said that four days was not enough. The scrutiny that we are having now is taking a lot longer than four days, convener.

Mr Sim, it is helpful to hear you confirm that you raised no concerns at all at any point in 2020. Mr Little, did you raise any concerns about the powers in 2020?

We are talking about this bill, Mr Little, so could you please stick to it? Did you raise concerns in 2020?