³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We have made representations that there should be a review of the timelines in the bill. I mentioned in my opening remarks that interested parties do not have long enough to appeal. We think that the one-month period in which to give notice of an appeal could be extended to allow those parties to raise any issues. In terms of transparency, that has been our commentary on the bill.

Transparency will depend on how good the database is. Awards will be logged on to the database and the information will be available for people to access and look at. However, much will depend on how effectively the database operates—I know that there have been teething problems with the database that has been used for the subsidy control regime. Providing that the database works as it should, that information will be available for people to interrogate.

Good morning. It is great to be here.

The two Scottish statutory instruments that you are considering today are routine. They concern the application of the public sector equality duty and of the Scotland-specific equality duties to our newest enterprise agency, South of Scotland Enterprise. South of Scotland Enterprise was established in April last year; the SSIs will bring it into line with Scottish Enterprise, Highland and Islands Enterprise and a large number of other non-departmental public bodies.

The Equality Act 2010 (Specification of Public Authorities) (Scotland) Order 2021 will add South of Scotland Enterprise to the list of public authorities that are required to comply with the public sector equality duty. That duty requires public authorities, when exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not.

The Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2021 will apply the Scotland-specific equality duties to South of Scotland Enterprise by adding it to the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012. That will require South of Scotland Enterprise to, for example, publish equality outcomes and report on progress towards achieving those outcomes; report on mainstreaming equality; and publish information on the gender pay gap and equal pay. I recognise the importance of ensuring that South of Scotland Enterprise exercises its functions with regard to the equality duties, and I consider the SSIs to be the best approach to achieving that.

I hope that that provides a useful overview to the committee. I am happy to answer questions.

That is a good question. The provision cannot be put in primary legislation; it needs to be in an SSI, in a separate process.

Your question about the time gap is very valid. Clearly, a lot of this has happened during Covid time, when the focus was elsewhere. It is important that we correct that now. When it comes to concerns about the implications of that, I assure you that South of Scotland Enterprise has, in any event, complied in all regards with the requirements, and was set up on that basis. The board and management are very clear about the requirements in the SSIs, which have been baked into their operation right from the start. We have not lost any time in that regard. This is, in effect, a tidying-up exercise, to bring the body into line with the legislation that applies to other enterprise agencies.

They will speak for themselves, but I understand that their concerns are largely about the potential downgrading of standards in pursuit of international trade deals—clearly, that is something to be concerned about—and the UK Government being in a position to make changes that the regulators are not comfortable with.

The 2020 act gives the UK Government the ability to impinge on devolved areas, which is something that we are deeply unhappy about. As we know, power devolved is power retained, so the UK Government can effectively do as it wishes in that regard. The internal market legislation allows the UK Government to do that, but that does not mean that that is a wise thing to do, or that it is in the interests of Scotland for it to do so.

Yes, I think so. From our perspective, the main issue is the impingement on devolved responsibilities. Issues have been raised by regulators, who also have concerns, but the main issue for us is the devolved aspects. We recognise the asks from the regulators and we are supportive of many of them. We hope that the UK Government will also move forward on those asks, with appropriate amendments.

There is regular on-going engagement at official level. I have spoken with and written to Gerry Grimstone, the relevant UK Government minister about the issue. We are hopeful there will be movement. There is regular discussion about the issue, as there is on many other areas.

I would like to think so, but it will come down to the UK Government reflecting on the situation. There have been issues of this kind, with other bills in which the UK Government has sought to impinge on devolved matters, that have not concluded in the way we would have liked. However, in this case, I am hopeful that the UK Government will recognise the importance of not impinging on devolved areas and will amend the bill accordingly.

They will be having their own separate discussions, but our officials are also engaging regularly with the regulators to understand their concerns about the professional issues that I have mentioned and how the bill impinges on devolved matters.