Chamber and committees

Is the committee content with the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Jeremy, and welcome to the committee.

The next item of business is to decide whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Is the committee content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Welcome to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s 19th meeting in 2022. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I remind everyone present to switch their mobile phones to silent.

The first item of business is a declaration of interests. In accordance with section 3 of the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”, I invite Jeremy Balfour MSP to declare any interests that are relevant to the committee’s remit.

Under agenda item 3, we are considering 10 instruments, on which no points have been raised.

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

For the record, I do not have any relevant interests to declare in this meeting.

I have one question for both cabinet secretaries. I am sure that, for anyone who read it, what the medium-term financial strategy said regarding the demographics of Scotland’s population was quite stark. That is not a new issue; as we know, it has been around for quite some time. The medium-term financial strategy document states:

“by mid-2043, it is projected that 22.9% of the population will be of pensionable age, compared to 19.0% in mid-2018.”

We have had Brexit, with its severe implications for Scotland, particularly for migration and people going back home. Has there been any update, or has any progress been made, on discussions with the UK Government on helping inward migration to Scotland to help to deal with that really important issue, which will clearly have an impact on Scotland’s economy?

Dr Anderson, you said earlier that civil servants are the glue that keeps things going when it comes to IGR, which I am sure will have struck a chord with everyone in the room because, as has been mentioned, politicians move on.

This is the third parliamentary session in which I have been on a committee that has discussed IGR. I was a member of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee way back in session 4, so it is a case of groundhog day, to say the least.

Looking through the submissions and the material in our papers, I was struck by the comments of Professor Nicola McEwen, who said:

“parliamentary committees in every UK legislature have called for greater transparency and greater oversight of IGR, not least in light of its increased importance in the context of both Brexit and Covid.”

She went on to say, with regard to the IGR review:

“there is no reference to parliamentary oversight or a requirement to engage the parliaments.”

Do you agree with Professor McEwen? Do you have any other thoughts?

It is fair to say that the population tell us how we should do our job all the time, so you do not need to be shy about it.

Notwithstanding the points that have been raised regarding civil servants, it is fair to say that anything that happens from now on will certainly be an improvement, because the previous IGR process was not fit for purpose in any way, shape or form. It was very much a failure.

I welcome the fact that progress has been made on the new process, which is no longer ad hoc, but there is no statutory provision for it—it seems to be somewhere in between. Should the process be on a statutory footing?