���˿���

I think—possibly because of my ex-Army background—that school uniform is a fine thing and it builds school identity. I will not rehearse all the arguments about it, because I think that they have been had before. A wider consideration is the financial effect of school uniform and some of the financial pressures that are faced by families. There have been some interesting innovations in that regard, particularly in Glasgow, with Glasgow’s Pre-Loved Uniform Service, which was set up by Donna Henderson. It is basically an exchange, because a lot of kids grow so fast that they outgrow clothing that is still perfectly usable. The service has been trying to reduce waste as well as addressing some issues around financial exclusion by introducing clothing rails in schools around Glasgow so that people can exchange items of uniform and refurbish uniforms.

When we are thinking about the issue of uniforms, we might want to think about how they are provided to kids and look at ways in which we can make the process more sustainable and reduce the turnover of uniform items that go to waste. It would be worth considering taking evidence from Donna Henderson, because she has done a fantastic job in Glasgow.

I share the petitioner’s concerns, having had dealings personally with Barrhead Travel in my region, which is one of the largest travel agents in the UK. It has raised concerns that the package of support was designed largely for hotels, hospitality venues and tourist attractions, which might be affected by the cessation of inbound tourism, and that similar consideration was not given to businesses that are involved with outbound tourism, and particularly travel agents. The support is geared towards travel agencies with premises but, even then, because of the way that the scheme is constructed, some businesses with multiple premises or companies such as Barrhead Travel, which employs nearly 500 people, do not necessarily qualify for support.

There is a major concern that there is a gap in the way that the system and schemes have been designed. The Northern Ireland model is certainly worth investigating as a benchmark. Before Christmas, I raised the matter with Ivan McKee, the Minister for Business, Trade, Tourism and Enterprise, and I was not convinced by his response. He made a point about having engaged with Barrhead Travel and, in effect, the company disputed that that was the case. There is clearly an issue about the level of engagement with the industry, and that is not to mention the issue of the design of the support structures. Clearly, people feel that they have been let down.

It is therefore appropriate for us to interrogate the matter further. We should write to the Scottish Government to raise the issue of the Northern Ireland scheme and ask why it has not been emulated. Perhaps we should also seek evidence from stakeholders. I nominate Barrhead Travel, but it might be worth investigating the position of other major participants in the sector.

I suppose that it is an issue of capacity. After taking out Government ministers and other members who cannot participate in CPGs, the number of members who are available to participate in any given CPG is quite restricted. I have a personal interest in the industry, having worked in the sector previously, so I felt that there was a gap in the market in which to set it up. I am grateful to colleagues for their support, and I hope that the CPG’s first year will be a success.

Thank you, convener.

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.