Chamber and committees

We have a couple more questions that we wish to ask. I will bring in Craig Hoy in a minute.

First, one of the other substantive areas of the report concerns data sharing. One of the threads that seems to run through the report is a lack of consensus between the two agencies, with a lack of agreement on timescales, measures of success and so on. There also appears to be an inordinate delay in getting a data-sharing agreement into place that addresses the task at hand around skills alignment.

I want to understand why there was such a delay in getting the data-sharing agreement in place. It seems to me that data is fundamental to the planning of future demand in the labour market, given the skills that we are going to need in five years’ time, 10 years’ time and so on. That data and that evidence are absolutely critical. Why did it take so long to get to the point that we have got to? Even now, is that data-sharing agreement fit for purpose? Will it address the challenge that we face?

That was the final question. I thank the Auditor General and his team—Gordon Smail, Douglas Black and Rebecca Seidel—for joining us.

We will have a changeover of witnesses, so I suspend the meeting.

If they think that they have something additional to say and want to come in, I am keen to hear their views. They do not, so I will move on.

I was also particularly struck by the strand of the skills alignment strategy relating to the appointment of a skills alignment director, which was a senior position. I will look again at the chronology—outlined in exhibit 3—after the rather dysfunctional episode with the skills committee. In February 2018, recruitment began for a skills alignment director. There was then a gap from February until October that year, when an interim director was appointed. In March 2019, the interim skills alignment director’s term ended. There was then another gap until August that year, when the permanent position was filled.

I do not know whether Gordon Smail is in a position to explain that or whether the Auditor General wants to have a go. Efficiency and effectiveness are cornerstones of what we are looking at, but the recruitment process, which was seen to be a key strategic part of driving the agenda forward, seems to have been highly inefficient. On top of that, it was decided later, after the permanent skills alignment director had left, that the post was surplus to requirements. Could you explain that for us?

Can you confirm that the position was originally advertised and the recruitment process begun to appoint a permanent skills alignment director in February 2018 but the position was permanently filled only in August the following year? That is a huge gap between the intent to recruit somebody to that critical position at what I presume was a critical time and somebody finally being permanently recruited.

Okay. I observe that there are huge gaps from the date of the post originally being advertised and it finally being filled permanently. However, there are also gaps in the coverage provided by an interim director or interim directors—I do not know whether it was one person or more. There were large spaces of time when there was nobody in post carrying out that function, which was seen to be pivotal to the delivery of the Scottish Government strategy.

Willie Coffey has at least one question that follows up that line of inquiry.

That is much appreciated. We will go straight to questions.

Thank you very much, convener, for allowing me to take part in this morning’s evidence session—I really appreciate it.

Some of my questions reflect on what you have already told us, cabinet secretary. Did I hear you say earlier that those convicted of an offence under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 will now be included in the pardon?

Okay, so it is not covered. I think that most people accept that, if there are public assaults involved, they are not included in the pardon. However, the 1875 act—I think that only a handful of people in Scotland were convicted under it—is about encouraging people to take part in strike action. That seems to me to be directly related to the activities around the strike, which in my view ought to be covered. However, I am sure that we shall debate that as the bill goes through Parliament.

Another thing that you mentioned earlier—again, keep me right on this, because I was obviously wrong about the first thing—was in relation to answers to questions about community-based convictions, which are currently excluded. You said something about “going through” communities. That reminds me of the case of one of your constituents, Jim Tierney, who was arrested and then convicted in Alloa sheriff court for allegedly throwing a missile at a working miners’ bus outside the Fishcross miners welfare club. He was convicted, but he disputes the conviction and he has evidence to support his disputation. Are you saying that you are willing to accept that such a case could be covered by the pardon?

This is a related point. Cabinet secretary, you mentioned the eastern villages—Fallin and Plean, for example—which were a flashpoint in the strike back in 1984 and 1985. Let us consider the village of Fallin, which is where the Polmaise colliery was. The miners at Polmaise were 100 per cent out, so there was no question of there being a need to take action to discourage people from going into the pit. However, it was reported to the Scott inquiry that there was nonetheless a very heavy police presence in the community, which led to tensions in the community and to arrests and subsequent convictions in the community.

Do you not think that there is a case for extending the scope of the bill in recognition of the fact that the dispute was conducted not just at the gates of the colliery or at demonstrations, but in communities as well?