Chamber and committees

Richard Leonard makes a really interesting case, but does he think that his proposal really fits into this bill, which is about something somewhat different—that is, the preparation of community wealth building plans?

I am delighted that Lorna Slater and I are in the same space on this at least. My amendment 5 states that, in preparing the community wealth building statement, ministers are required to consult with businesses that might be affected by that. In line with my earlier comments, I have taken a very modest approach to amendments to the bill and have lodged only four amendments. Later, we will come to a similar amendment of mine on the preparation of community wealth building plans, which includes a requirement to consult with businesses. In order to be consistent, I wanted to lodge this amendment so that ministers, when preparing the draft statement, will also consult with businesses, given that they are likely to be impacted by what is in that statement from the Scottish ministers.

Can I interrupt you just for a second? Regardless of who owns the companies, they are going to face the same challenges with energy costs, are they not?

What is your view on the costs set out in the plan and how it is all to be paid for? Do you think that the plan deals with that sufficiently?

Thank you.

The convener will be pleased to know that I do not intend to comment on every amendment in the group or in subsequent groups. However, I will briefly share some general thoughts on the Conservatives’ approach to the bill.

We very much support the concept of community wealth building, and we support the bill in principle. I was a little dismayed to see so many amendments, many of which deal with matters that, in my view, are extraneous and should not form part of the bill at all.

In my view, as community wealth building plans are to be determined by other bodies—public bodies or, in some cases, local authorities—we should not try to tie their hands, particularly not those of local authorities, by setting very prescriptive rules centrally about what they can or should not do. That should be a matter for local determination and local decision making. On that basis, there are a number of amendments that we will discuss later that the Conservatives will not support, because we do not think that the Scottish Parliament should be telling local authorities how they should set out the community wealth building plans.

I associate myself with the minister’s closing comments about the need for focus, which could get lost if we accept too many amendments that would restrict the flexibility of bodies, including local councils, in drawing up their plans while taking into account the views of stakeholders whom the plans have to relate to. That is our general approach.

I will comment briefly on a couple of the amendments. Lorna Slater will not be hugely surprised to hear that we will not support her amendment 70, which seeks to remove the reference to economic growth. In our view, economic growth is absolutely essential if we are to deliver the successful Scotland that we all want. We therefore want to see that wording retained. I am a bit disappointed with the minister for feeling that he has to qualify the term “economic growth” through amendment 71. That is probably unnecessary, and we will not support that amendment.

Amendment 18 would require those who prepare community wealth building plans to consult businesses that operate in the area, particularly those that would likely be impacted by any targets, which we will discuss in a later group of amendments.

I listened with interest to what the minister said about the matter, and I have looked at the wording of his amendment 92, which I will support. Amendment 92 talks about the need for consultation with persons who are considered to be

“representative of the interests of … businesses”,

which is a slightly different point from the one that I am making in amendment 18.

I will be happy to support amendment 92 and will not move amendment 18, but I would be interested in having discussions with the minister prior to stage 3 to see whether we could agree on some other wording.

Good morning. I would like to follow up Lorna Slater’s questions and ask more about the costs in the plan, and costs to the wider economy.

We have seen an element of deindustrialisation in Scotland in the past short time, with Grangemouth and Mossmorran closing. Many of the things that we used to produce in Scotland are no longer produced here, because of high energy costs. We are still using those things, but we are importing them from other countries, so all we have done is export our carbon emissions elsewhere. That makes us look good because it reduces our emissions, but it does not deliver any net benefit in terms of reducing CO₂ emissions worldwide, and it means that we lose the jobs that are here.

I have just been looking at prices in the contracts for difference allocation round 7. For offshore wind, the latest price is £90 per MWh.

Of course, that does not include the cost of building the new transmission or the cost of the storage back-up that is required for wind. Compared with that £90 per MWh figure, gas is priced at just under £55 per MWh. If we are trying to decarbonise, we need to move away from gas, but what does that mean? Is there a real concern that we will lose our industrial capacity because we are going for higher-priced energy?

09:15

Everybody has referenced costs. I want to ask a bit more about the costs in the climate change plan, because it is a statutory requirement that the plan must set out an estimate of the costs and benefits associated with the policies, broken down by reference to the period covered by a Scottish carbon budget in which those costs and benefits are expected to rise. The legislation is quite clear as to what the plan should say about costs and benefits. Does anybody have a view on whether the plan that has been published adequately addresses that? Paul de Leeuw, you are smiling.

Karen Turner is nodding away. Do you want to add to that?