Seòmar agus comataidhean

That should be linked to any grant. If a big grant goes to a company that employs 300 or 400 people, we should be saying that they must have collective bargaining in the workplace in return for getting that grant.

There is obviously progress but, on the point about conditionality, what specifically are you saying about that? We are moving to a position in which companies that receive Government grants must pay the minimum wage. That is long overdue—I remember proposing that 15 years ago when I was a councillor and being told that it was illegal. We are getting there, eventually, but during the pandemic, a host of grants were handed out without any conditionality. Businesses took grants to get through the week, but they still made people redundant or handed out zero-hours contracts.

What specifics, beyond payment of the living wage, should we attach to that conditionality? Should we say that employers must have collective bargaining, or be moving towards that? Should we say that employers cannot use zero-hours contracts? We have a lot of levers that we can use in Scotland when it comes to grants. How should we be pulling that particular lever?

We have looked at conditionality in contracts. Are there any other policy levers that the Parliament or the Scottish Government have at their disposal and that should be used, or are there specific policy changes that would drive progress in the five areas where you indicated that there had not been enough progress?

I turn to the important role of Government procurement in securing local supply chains. In response to the first question, minister, you talked about building robust supply chains to deal with the pandemic, and I want to touch on one example of a response to the pandemic. A company that is mentioned in our report and that you are very familiar with is Alpha Solway. We said that it

“has been cited as an excellent example of business, working with the public sector, to rebuild Scotland’s economy and create a more sustainable and resilient supply chain.”

You visited the company in Dumfries a few months ago, and you are quoted as saying that

“their expansion has created over 300 new jobs, underlining the importance of the manufacturing of vital personal protective equipment to our economic recovery.”

You went on to say:

“The £4.8 million South of Scotland Enterprise investment demonstrates a commitment to secure the long-term future of manufacturing in Scotland whilst showing how public and private sectors can collaborate to address challenges caused by the pandemic.”

However, as you know, that company has just shut one of its Dumfries plants, and there are not 300 new jobs; there are actually only a dozen. The company no longer produces PPE because the national health service in Scotland ended the contracts for that. I understand that that was one of the cuts that the Government recently announced.

Everyone accepts that demand for PPE was going to fall—that includes the company, which is refocusing its work—but I do not think that anyone, including you, fully expected the cliff edge, with contracts ending overnight. How do such decisions show a commitment by the Government to building resilient supply chains, particularly for a product such as PPE? It is a real challenge, as it was during the pandemic, to make sure that we have the local supplies that we need. That is not a great example of building long-term resilient supply.

—and to give an assurance that it is all being purchased and manufactured—

I am saying that I want an absolute assurance that all PPE that is used in the public sector in Scotland is actually manufactured here. It seems that the Government is not being entirely clear about that. It is surprising that, just a few months ago, you were talking about the creation of 300 jobs and then, all of a sudden, that stopped. We all knew that supplies would be reduced as we moved out of the pandemic, but I do not think that anyone—not even you—expected that cliff edge, given the comments that you made just a few weeks ago about the future of that company. The workers who have lost their jobs were certainly not expecting that cliff edge.

I am curious whether you think that our procurement rules have been adequately changed to increase reliance and focus on local supply chains. The example of PPE suggests that some of that is still being produced outwith Scotland. That, to me, is an example of something that should be produced entirely in Scotland. There are lots of other products that could be produced around the world, and I am not sure that our procurement rules emphasise that, if something can be made in Scotland, the public sector should purchase it in Scotland.

For example, if a purchaser in a local authority, the police or the fire service wants to buy PPE, does the system show where it is manufactured? It might be said that the PPE is supplied by a company in Scotland, but is where the PPE is manufactured actually said? How much information is provided about where products are manufactured? How much emphasis is put on ensuring that the public sector buys products that are produced in Scotland when it can?

I will come back to the wider policy issue, but I want to follow up on the comments about Alpha Solway. Minister, you said that investment will give the company a base for the future, but that is not much consolation for workers who, at the height of the pandemic, put themselves at risk to produce the PPE that our nurses and doctors needed to keep themselves safe. Those workers have basically been made redundant. They do not have a job in the short term because of a cliff edge that absolutely no one expected.

You said that we are not buying PPE any more. Are you telling us that no PPE at all is being purchased by the public sector in Scotland? Anyone who walks into a hospital has to wear a face covering, and I presume that the police and fire services are still purchasing PPE. Why did you say that no one is purchasing PPE? I presume that they are. If so, is all the PPE that is used in the Scottish public sector being manufactured here in Scotland?

A follow-up response would be really helpful, minister. You said that you are making inquiries. It seems quite strange that, so many years into a pandemic, you are making inquiries about whether the public sector, across the board, is purchasing PPE entirely within Scotland. It would be really helpful if you wrote to the committee to explain the outcome of your inquiries—

You have the power to ask it. Perhaps there is a debate to be had. In relation to the police, the fire service and other national bodies, how much of a central approach is there to something as important as PPE? It would be really helpful to know that a product is absolutely—100 per cent—being purchased by the public sector from manufacturers in Scotland. It would be good to get the outcome of your inquiries into that.

That is a really important point, because there is a huge group of people out there who could make a huge contribution to businesses such as yours but who need support to get into them.

I will not touch too much on skills and labour shortages, as one of my colleagues will probably ask about that issue, but I wonder whether Euan Clark can say something about the support that his sector is able to provide at the moment.