Chamber and committees

As the bill stands, we would have to interpret whether the individual “reasonably believed” that any of the exceptions applied. In effect, we would have to rely on that individual saying that they “reasonably believed” that the exception applied. Under my amendment, instead of simply relying on the individual, we would rely on evidence, which would make it clearer and easier to prove one way or the other.

The current policy does not recognise the priority of animal welfare or the sentience of all animals. The Government itself has recognised that that is the case in some areas. For example, in its approach to the upcoming deer management policy, it is going further than the current policy statements that are in place. There is a recognition that those statements are outdated and need to be updated. We are not specifying exactly what the detailed policies should be. The detailed application process should be part of a discussion and consultation.

I will finish my point first.

The approach should be to discuss it with all stakeholders, including those involved in wildlife management and those involved in animal welfare. As part of that—they are very small amendments—the direction of travel should be to follow ethical principles in developing a licensing scheme.

I would turn the question round and ask any member to look at the seven ethical principles—I have given an example—and say which of them should not guide the process when it comes to an application.

So the main issue is certainty about the pipeline of work. Is there anything else that we need to do to ensure that we do not make the mistakes of the past on energy in particular, which the unions are rightly concerned about? Renewable companies say, “We would like to use Scottish businesses, but ... ”. They then award the contracts to companies abroad. Apart from giving certainty about work, what other barriers do we need to break down?

Good morning to the panel. The commission and many others have consistently called for greater clarity around the pipeline of work that is required to transition to net zero. Do we have a good understanding of the level of detail that is necessary to deliver the certainty that the industry is calling for on what work will be needed to deliver that?

I represent a very rural area—South Scotland—and I agree entirely with what Rachel McEwen said. How do we deliver that? We have a conflict. The rules might suggest that we cannot put huge conditionality on that, so how do we do that? Is it just about ensuring that our supply chains are fit for purpose and that we are investing in the ports and in companies? Is that the only route?

Ultimately, price will be the driver for renewable companies. That will be the main driver. We have the desire to see electricity produced as cheaply as possible. There is a conflict there in producing electricity cheaply and trying to use a local supply chain that is more expensive. How do we ensure that we get what Rachel McEwen and others are asking for? What policy interventions do we fundamentally need?

I appreciate that those are very detailed questions that are probably for a commission in itself.

That is interesting. Obviously, skills are one barrier, but are there any other barriers that supply chain businesses currently face in ensuring that they can access the huge work potential and that they have the workforce in place? Are there any other barriers that need to be broken down in the supply chain to ensure that they can fulfil those things?

You mentioned local content. ScotWind probably provides the best example of the opportunities that we have. The focus has been on companies effectively coming up with development plans around supply chain jobs, but I was interested in your earlier point about conditionality around local content. Should we be driving that a lot more, or should we just continue to leave it to the companies to decide how much local content they want? That appears to be the approach to ScotWind.

There is obviously progress but, on the point about conditionality, what specifically are you saying about that? We are moving to a position in which companies that receive Government grants must pay the minimum wage. That is long overdue—I remember proposing that 15 years ago when I was a councillor and being told that it was illegal. We are getting there, eventually, but during the pandemic, a host of grants were handed out without any conditionality. Businesses took grants to get through the week, but they still made people redundant or handed out zero-hours contracts.

What specifics, beyond payment of the living wage, should we attach to that conditionality? Should we say that employers must have collective bargaining, or be moving towards that? Should we say that employers cannot use zero-hours contracts? We have a lot of levers that we can use in Scotland when it comes to grants. How should we be pulling that particular lever?

We have looked at conditionality in contracts. Are there any other policy levers that the Parliament or the Scottish Government have at their disposal and that should be used, or are there specific policy changes that would drive progress in the five areas where you indicated that there had not been enough progress?

That should be linked to any grant. If a big grant goes to a company that employs 300 or 400 people, we should be saying that they must have collective bargaining in the workplace in return for getting that grant.