Official Report 205KB pdf
Item 4 on the agenda is a discussion of climate change events. Members have paper TIC/S3/08/18/2, which discusses the possibility of our holding an event in the Parliament chamber on climate change. We will have opportunities to take oral evidence from witnesses as we consider the proposed climate change bill, but the level of interest in the bill is high and it is suggested that an event in the chamber would allow us to give opportunities to a far wider range of people to engage with the Parliament. It is also suggested that the event might be an opportunity to invite speakers from other countries to take part, so that we fit the bill into a wider context. Those people could be from consulates here in Edinburgh, or we could hear from people by videolink. We have suggested that the event could form part of environment week next year, which is towards the end of February. I ask for members' comments on that proposal, before we move on to the second proposal in the paper.
I am supportive of the idea and the principles that lie behind it. However, I am slightly concerned that, as I am sure you realise, convener, having been to many events at which interest groups have given their views, we need to have a balanced cross-section of interests, rather than allowing the event to be overpopulated—I do not want to use the word "hijacked"—by a particular interest group, if you know what I mean.
Even those of us who are very close to the interest groups that you might be thinking about would not want an event that simply had the convinced talking to the convinced, even on specific policy initiatives. If the discussion and debate are to explore the issues usefully, the event absolutely must include the broadest range of views possible.
I will float an alternative suggestion. There is an annual event that brings business representatives into the Parliament—I think that the Enterprise and Culture Committee started it in the previous session. Rather than have a standalone event, given the importance of the climate change issue, we could discuss with the relevant committee the possibility of that business event focusing on climate change. That would use a parliamentary event to involve what is perhaps the most important sector in society in the work on the climate change agenda. The proposed bill will probably be the biggest legislative change to impact on business. My suggestion is an alternative to the standalone event on climate change that the paper suggests. We could ask whether the already established event could focus on climate change.
The suggestion is that our proposed event would form part of environment week, for which there is an established programme of events in the Parliament. I take the point entirely that the business community in Scotland has an important place in the debate. However, your suggestion might conflict with Alex Johnstone's point that we should have the broadest range of participants. There would be a danger in speaking only to the business community if we used the business event. Do you have any information about the timing of that event, if we were to talk to the organisers?
I do not, but my recollection is that it is normally held in February or March. I got the impression that Alex Johnstone was suggesting that, if we have an event purely on climate change, the risk is that the stop climate chaos coalition and other organisations that have long worked on the issue will be most likely to come. We need to cross-fertilise the climate change debate so that it is not just a debate in the committee. We must take it out as a key issue in which other significant sectors need to become involved if we are to be successful.
I will bring in other members before we come back to that.
I understand Des McNulty's point about the business in the Parliament conference, but we are considering holding seminars with the wider business community. There is room for both types of event. I see our climate change event as bringing together people from other parts of the continent who are involved in the issue. Although the business sector in Scotland is important and we need to engage with it, simply dwelling on that sector would narrow the agenda. I am keen to hear about what is happening elsewhere in the world, as that would be valuable for us in our work on the issue.
I hesitate to offer advice as I am only a substitute committee member. However, it strikes me that there might be a way of bringing together what Des McNulty and Alex Johnstone have suggested. Would it be worth considering an event of the kind that Des suggested in an effort to mainstream environmental issues among the business community, perhaps by devoting one part of the business in the Parliament conference to it and bringing in other people so that it is not just a dialogue involving people who have one point of view? Is it possible to devote part of the business in the Parliament event to climate change?
There would be a lot of benefits in Cathy Peattie's suggestion of trying to speak to people from different parts of the world rather than just the usual suspects from Scotland, whose views we already know. The world social forum is one example, and it would be good to involve such groups if we are to make the event significant. If we are going to go through the financial rigours of using the chamber and so on, it is important that we put on a top-class event. I support Cathy's proposal as well as the proposal to engage the business community by making environmental issues part of the programme for the separate event.
I can see the sense of having an event related to the committee's work during an established week such as environment week, and I am reassured by the convener's response to Alex Johnstone about not just talking to the usual suspects.
Let me first point out that, in paragraph 9 of the paper, it is proposed that we explore the possibility of funding our event from the corporate events budget.
I see—that is the real reason behind that proposal.
I argue that the timing works well in relation to our consideration of the climate change bill. If we did not have a major input into environment week in the Parliament while we were considering the climate change bill, it would strike the wrong tone and would be a missed opportunity. I suggest that we agree to the proposal to have an event as part of environment week, that we seek the agreement of the Presiding Officer and the corporate events team, to make it as good an event as possible, and that we also discuss with the relevant committee and the business in the Parliament organisers, who may already have plans for that event's focus, whether it could focus on climate change specifically in relation to the business community. Our event would be broader than that. Is that agreed?
The second part of the paper, from paragraph 10 onwards, deals with a conference in St Malo in France—the world summit of the regions conference on climate change. It obviously provides an opportunity to meet people from a range of Assemblies and Parliaments in different regions or nations—for example, sub-member states in Europe. They will have a range of legislative powers and relationships with other levels of government, and it would be interesting to explore how the Scottish approach to climate change fits into the approaches taken by the United Kingdom and the European Union. There will be a range of interesting views at the conference, and the proposal is to send one member.
Where is St Malo?
It is in Brittany, I think.
So it is not that far away—it is not in the Mediterranean.
Unfortunately. Somewhere in Italy would have been nice.
If the geographic issues have been clarified, are there any other questions on the proposal to send a member to the conference?
It sounds like an excellent idea.
Is the proposal agreed?