Chamber and committees

Amendment 23 brings consideration of just transition principles into the bill. Amendment 34 is a proposal to integrate the five community wealth building pillars into the bill in a slightly different way than my previous amendments 30 and 32. By structuring the statement’s objectives around the five community wealth building pillars and connecting them to the national performance framework outcomes, the bill can hardwire community wealth building into Scotland’s broader economic, social and environmental architecture.

On Murdo Fraser’s amendment 5, the member and I have both proposed amendments that include businesses to varying degrees, so I think that we all spotted the same gap. Perhaps the minister has proposed amendments on that as well. However, I prefer my approach, so I will not be supporting Murdo Fraser’s amendment on this occasion.

Amendment 53, from Richard Leonard, again, has too frequent reporting and is not a good use of resources. Amendment 123, from Paul Sweeney, is a bit awkwardly worded and specific. Again, I think that Paul Sweeney is on the right track, but perhaps he should reconsider the wording before stage 3.

One of my concerns is that the community wealth building statement should not become something that the Scottish Government can just publish and ignore, so amendment 6 seeks to compel ministers to take action in line with their statement. The form of words is based on that in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, so I believe that the approach is sound.

I would like to understand from the minister what his preferred approach is to ensure that the statement is more than just a bit of paper on the shelf, and, if he does not prefer my proposed approach, how it will connect with policy and other legislation in an integrated way.

Paul Sweeney’s amendments in this group highlight the same point, so the Government will need to address it—if not at stage 2, then at stage 3.

I move amendment 6.

Too often, when public bodies publish data, they do so in a format that does not lend itself to analysis, such as scanned hard copies or PDFs. These amendments seek to ensure that all data must be published in a suitable format for analysis.

There are two different types of amendments in the group. One explicitly calls for a standardised machine-readable format and the other gives the Scottish ministers the option to specify by regulation the format of data that is to be published. Those are two slightly different approaches but both are intended to ensure that any data that is produced can be analysed in a straightforward way.

Will the minister give way?

Amendment 8 says:

“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations specify further details about the format”.

The related amendments in the group say something similar. Therefore, I am not seeking for the bill to specify what the format should be. I would be allowing ministers to adjust that as we go forward. Is that not acceptable?

I thank the witnesses for coming to the committee this morning—it is lovely to see you. I am a member of Unite the Union, and it is always good to have the unions before the committee.

My first question is about how the transition to a net zero economy will change the shape of our economy. I have been reading that, globally, investment in clean energy is double the current investment in fossil fuels. What does that mean for economic success in Scotland as we transition? How does the climate change plan affect our competitiveness, and how does it compare with what other countries are doing? Is it how we will move forward and improve our economy, or are we disadvantaging ourselves? What are the opportunities and how do we make sure that we seize them?

We heard from witnesses last week that they felt that the plan was more of an emissions reduction plan than a climate change plan, because it did not incorporate things such as resilience building and adaptability—which goes back to what Dougie Maguire was saying about what we do in the meantime, until jam tomorrow arrives. I am curious to hear your thoughts on the credibility of the plan as a climate change plan and what it means for the people you represent.

The only policy that you have identified is the decoupling. Are there no others that you would consider?

Does anyone else want to come in on my question?

Understood. I turn to the credibility of negative emissions technologies. As I understand it—I am happy to be corrected if I have misunderstood—there are, in essence, two flavours of negative emissions technologies. In one version, you would attach an interim measure, perhaps a chemical process or a reverse process, to a specific installation to deal with the emissions of that specific site. The other version is a bit more hypothetical, whereby you would take those emissions and stuff them back under the North Sea and hope that they stay there. Have I got that right, and how credible are the two pathways? I heard Professor de Leeuw talk about negative emissions technology as an interim solution. I would agree with having that as an interim solution for key industrial sites until we can get electrification going, but I am very sceptical—because it has not been proven—about the idea of long-term carbon storage under the North Sea.