Seòmar agus comataidhean

It was really about the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and whether more conditionality should have been applied, on the basis of that act, to the moneys that came directly from the Scottish Government and to the grants from Scottish Enterprise.

I am known for nothing else but plain speaking. You should not smile so broadly, minister.

The subtext to this is that there is a risk that, in essence, nothing will really change as a result of the bill—the Government will issue another set of guidance, there will be a round of consultations by local authorities and they will produce a report. There have been four suggestions—that is the number that comes to mind—for changes that could be made at stage 2, and I ask you to consider them.

First, in relation to what Lorna Slater and Gordon MacDonald said, could a consistent set of metrics be provided—not necessarily in the bill but in a subsection of the guidance—and could local authorities be required to set their own targets? You made the good point that one set of targets cannot apply to every area. However, if each local authority used a consistent set of metrics but was required to set its own targets, would that improve the bill and move things forward? What is your response to that idea?

This will not work unless there is capacity and capability to heed the calls. It is about ensuring that people who know how to do that stuff have the confidence to do it. That is not going to happen unless there is support. Is there a possibility of considering broad duties to support capacity building or the Government looking at how it could use its agencies to help local communities to develop the skills, know-how and wherewithal to approach community wealth building? Unless people are starting businesses and creating community organisations and initiatives, community wealth building will just not happen. No amount of consultation or reports in the world will change that.

I guess the key question is: are you open to exploring some of those possibilities through stage 2?

Fantastic—I will leave it there.

I will tease out the other element. My understanding is that, according to news reports, the Ministry of Defence is currently examining whether Chinese electric vehicles should be allowed on Ministry of Defence sites. Again, I emphasise the point that our bus network is critical national infrastructure. If we view the bus network as critical national infrastructure, do you think that we need to examine where we are sourcing buses from, considering the elements of national security?

The previous witnesses alluded to things that perhaps should be included in the bill, such as initial facilitation that makes it easier for small businesses and community organisations to engage, processes to engage community organisations at the start of a process and standardised reporting. Those things might make a difference. Does COSLA think that the inclusion of those issues might strengthen the bill? Right now, local authorities are required to do some additional consultation and produce a report—there is no additional activity, duties or obligations. My concern is that, without exploring some of those additional possibilities, nothing much will change in some areas.

Forgive me, you are slightly putting words in my mouth. Equally, if we had fundamentally different standards for weights, measures and product information from the rest of the UK that made it difficult to sell to the rest of the UK, there would be an outcry among those self-same people. There is a balance to be struck, partly because withdrawing from the EU has meant that there is a broad range of market regulation that now exists at UK level that was previously at European level. More importantly, as much as I believe in devolution, I also believe that we want common market standards and as big a market as possible, including at UK level. All that I am asking is whether there is not a balance to be struck and whether divergence is not a concern regardless of what market you are talking about. Is it not about how those competing interests are balanced?

I understand that. Basically, I think that there is a balance to be struck. Given that the bill was essentially inherited from the previous UK Administration—and I think that we are still in a new world in terms of understanding market regulation in a post-EU context—has the Scottish Government made an approach to the Cabinet Office seeking a broader set of principles and understandings, so that devolution is front-loaded into its thinking? It appears that we have found ourselves in the position of having to think about devolution after legislation has been drafted. If the Scottish Government has such concerns, is it trying to be proactive about finding new approaches to these issues?

Have you formalised that in any way, by trying to seek a more systematic approach?