Chamber and committees

I see that another intervention has been requested, but I am afraid that I would not get any extra time. If the Presiding Officer were to be generous, I would be happy to take the intervention, but I see that she is shaking her head. I say to Mr Griffin that I am really sorry.

The reality is that, if this was easy, the Scottish Government would have done it already. It would be shouting from the rooftops about its latest game-changer benefit. That is where the problem lies. My issue is not with Mr Griffin or his bill. It is just that the reality of the situation is that we could create a body that had nothing to do. Perish the thought. My guess is—

I also congratulate Mark Griffin on getting his bill to this stage, because getting a member’s bill through the system is no easy matter. It is time-consuming and can be frustrating, so he has done really well. He must have been full of hope that his proposal might become law, until he read the committee’s report. A negative committee report has not always been the death knell for a member’s bill. I have certainly seen a couple that managed to get over that hurdle. There is an element of luck involved and certainly a lot of politics. There is always the risk that other parties will just reject a proposal because the member is not one of them—that should not happen, but it does.

Having listened to what has been said so far, I think that Mr Griffin is out of luck. He probably knows that. It is a pity, because at this stage of the proceedings we decide whether we agree with the general principles of the bill. The aim is to legislate

“to create a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council, to provide for its functions in relation to employment-injury assistance, and for connected purposes.”

I will be honest. I did not ask to speak in this debate. I knew nothing about the bill until my name appeared on my party whips’ list, but I thought that, if they were going to get me to speak in a debate about something that has not troubled me previously, I would do Mr Griffin the courtesy of not falling back on the lazy way out by just asking what our position is.

After reading the bill, I therefore turned to the committee report, which was useful. It tells us that

“The Bill would create an independent Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council ... with three functions”,

namely to

“scrutinise regulations on Employment Injury Assistance ... report on any matter relevant to EIA”

and

“carry out, commission or support research into any matter relevant to EIA.”

It adds:

“The Bill also mandates the membership and membership balance of the Advisory Council, including the representation of workers on the Council.”

So far, so good. However, if we skip to the end of the report, we find the committee full of praise for Mr Griffin and his good intentions, but saying that it

“is not able to support the general principles of the Bill.”

Paul O’Kane, who is not in the chamber at the moment, dissented from that, although his Labour colleague on the committee, Katy Clark, appears not to have done so. I do not know why that was the case, but the question is how the committee, with the honourable exception of Mr O’Kane, arrived at such a conclusion and whether I agree with it.

My starting point is the benefit that Mr Griffin wishes his bill to deal with—EIA. It does not currently exist because, although the Scottish Government could have set it up, it has not done so, preferring instead to have its good friends in the DWP continue to administer industrial injuries benefits under an agreement that will run until at least the end of March 2026.

It is good to see Mr O’Kane back in the chamber. Perhaps someone will tell him how I was praising him earlier. The UK Government has its advisers—

This is an admission of failure. I am astonished that the two Green Party ministers have not resigned in disgust, but there they are, sat on the front bench. The cabinet secretary describes—[Interruption.] I cannot even hear myself talk.

The cabinet secretary talks about a minor legislative amendment, but targets were set in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The requirement to have a climate change plan, which is now overdue, was also in the act. What will remain in the act, following what the cabinet secretary describes as a minor legislative amendment?

I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I think that I heard him say that UK ministers had asked to meet about clause 50. If I heard him right, can he tell us when that meeting will take place?

Will the member take an intervention?

In this case, I am not even sure that the UK Government was asked for its opinion.

That gives parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament a problem, because we have only one side of the story. It may be that the Scottish Government is right, but, unless we hear both sides of the story, how are we to judge?

That frustration—my frustration—is echoed in the report from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. The committee is quite clearly not in a position to say who is right and who is wrong, and it calls for further talks between the Governments. We have heard from the minister today that UK ministers have now reached out—perhaps it is late in the day, but they have asked for a meeting. That meeting has not yet taken place, and it should have taken place much earlier.

I am not interested in whose fault it is. Both Governments ought to be working together to resolve these matters—in essence, I share the committee convener’s frustration. Having said that, however, we will support the motion.

I assure members that I will take nothing like five minutes to deal with this matter, so we may have an earlier decision time.

Given the debate so far, it is clear that this is potentially a complex area of law and that there are a whole range of issues to be considered. With regard to clause 50, I note that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s excellent report dealt with the issue in some detail. The committee received evidence that it could lead to a two-tier system, and that concern was raised at committee by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, so I think that the minister is wrong to ignore it.

I share the committee’s concern that it is not in a position to properly say whether the Scottish Government or the UK Government is correct on the matter of clause 50. In general, we have, time and time again, come across the same issue. Where the Scottish Government and the UK Government disagree on whether something strays into the area of devolved competence, in my experience, committees of this Parliament get to hear only from the Scottish Government, and that is the case in this instance.

The point that I am getting at is that, if you set in law regulations that say that householders need to do X, Y or Z, how on earth will you make me do anything to my house without coming into it?

Okay. There was mention of councils producing local heat strategies. What is the level of detail in those? Do they set out when certain things will be done? I presume that they will identify areas that councils believe are suitable for district heating. Do they set out timescales for when that could come in?