Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 19 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1645 contributions

|

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

Thank you.

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

Quite recently, there has been an explosion in folk buying land, with some becoming large landowners very quickly. In your opinion, has that expansion, a large amount of which has probably been down to carbon unit pricing and so on, had a negative effect on smaller tenants, farmers and landowners?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

It has been trying to do so basically since the Parliament was created.

I am interested in your thoughts on whether carbon units should be property.

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

That is really interesting. I will not ask any further questions, because we could probably spend hours on the subject, but it might be worth while for Professor Robbie’s work to be circulated among committee members.

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

Good morning. That is the first time that I have ever heard a bill described as elegant. At the beginning of the process, if you had asked us to describe the bill, the word “elegant” might not have come to mind first. Also, I have never seen so many professors give testimony on a bill—it has been interesting.

I will keep my questions simple. Once again, we have learned a lot this morning—Stephen Kerr said that at points he has felt like he is facing a conundrum, and I think that we have all felt that to a degree. Basically, you have said that we have the opportunity to ensure that we get the bill right, although, beyond that, we recognise that there is still more to do. There has been talk of specificity, but there has also been talk of uncertainty. To overcome that, it sounds as if we need to continue to monitor and scrutinise the effects of the bill as we move forward.

Gordon MacDonald asked about the advisory board or panel and whether we should rely on the UK Government. As I have sat here listening this morning, I have been wondering whether it is enough to have one advisory board or panel, considering all the areas of business that we are looking at. My simple question is this: is one advisory panel enough? Do we need to do more than that and make every Government portfolio look at the issue and see what is required in its area of business?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

Maybe an advisory panel is not the way forward. Professor Schafer talked about individual expertise. Maybe, as I think Greg McLardie has suggested, the oversight needs to be built into Government at various points, with a recognition that a new breed of expert will be required on how we move forward on many of the issues. As a Parliament, we have built in various rules around ministers having to look at issues such as climate change or equalities—the list goes on. Is this one of those areas where we need to build in an overview as we move forward in day-to-day business? Alternatively, would that be too complex?

10:45  

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

Professor Schafer, you made a comment about a tick-box exercise. Sometimes, when we do certain things and tell people that they have to comply, that can become a tick-box exercise, but that is the last thing that we want to see happening here.

Can I be a little bit cheeky, convener?

Economy and Fair Work Committee [Draft]

Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

Professor Robbie, I am interested in what you said about whether carbon units should be property. Can you expand on that? You also said that you tried to get some of that into the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. If the convener will allow me to ask you to, can you give us an insight into what you were trying to do?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

I go back to my point that some folk feel that there is legal uncertainty around that. Having explored this, I think that there could be a number of unintended consequences from some parts of the bill as drafted. You have said that you are willing to work with the Government and others to amend it. That is admirable and we would expect that. I do not think that anyone is against the spirit of the bill.

However, I think that there needs to be some further exploration around potential amendments. Would you be favourable to that? Do you think that there is enough time in this session for us to take cognisance of the real concerns that have been raised by operators and consenting authorities?

11:30  

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee

Ecocide (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Kevin Stewart

I have not come across anyone who is against the general principles of the bill. However, as the bill stands at the moment, there is a real fear about unintended consequences. I believe that some folk want to have time to feed in their concerns so that we get any amendments right.

My concern is that it is very late in the day in this parliamentary session, and I do not know whether we are going to do justice to the folks who have concerns, given the time that is required. I get Ms Lennon’s point about the 14-week consultation that ran from November 2023, but she knows as well as I do that folk sometimes do not come forward at initial consultations because they do not see how something will impact them, just as I do not think that the planners realised how much the bill could impact them until they got that letter.