Chamber and committees

The form asks for an estimate. Obviously, we do not know what the cost will be in year 1. We spent some time looking at other CPGs, for which quite a range of figures has been given.

The committee is looking at the role of CPGs. I do not wish to call other groups into question but, sometimes, it is quite difficult to see how the range of figures is produced. We were keen to provide an estimate at the higher end, to provide as much transparency as possible, but that figure is primarily intended to cover staff time in preparing for meetings and writing agendas and minutes.

As we discussed at our initial meeting, there is a hope that the group can engage more closely with some sites, companies and other things outwith Parliament, and there might be costs involved in facilitating that. It is not that MSPs would receive any of that £2,000 but that there might be incidental costs in facilitating the visits in terms of time and resource. Although it is a large figure on paper, it is not a large figure across 12 months for a group that plans to be active. It is a ballpark figure.

Some CPGs appear to have help from outside organisations with no costs involved. Our figure was to reflect the fact that people would be paid for hours of work to support the CPG.

Decommissioning will be a huge part of its work—it will probably make up the majority of the work, because the majority of the sites in Scotland are at that stage. However, we did not want to exclude those working in the supply chain or those who continue to work at Torness or Hunterston from our considerations.

We are also keenly aware that there are opportunities for the supply chain in Scotland in relation to new nuclear power elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is a UK-wide nuclear skills task force, and a lot of the skills that are involved in decommissioning and in the supply chain overlap with those in new nuclear power—it is essentially the same workforce. Again, we are keen to explore career pathways and opportunities for people living in Scotland.

There is also a research centre at the University of Strathclyde that carries out advanced nuclear research. I do not think that it is the Scottish Government’s position that such things should not be happening in Scotland, as its position relates to the building of new nuclear power stations.

I will be up front about the fact that there are members of the proposed group who are passionately in favour of new nuclear power, but there are also members of it who do not support that. I make it quite clear that the group will not be campaigning for new nuclear sites; neither, however, will it be campaigning against such sites. We did not want to exclude people in the industry who are working in Scotland at the moment. We want to take the broadest look at the art of the possible with regard to capturing the cross-party support that is required to set up a cross-party group.

The vast majority of the activity in the nuclear sector in Scotland, both economically and in relation to the sheer number of workers, is in decommissioning. A lot of people do not understand that. They say that the Scottish Government is against new nuclear power stations, but there are thousands of people who will be working—today, tomorrow and into the future—on the sites in question, and it is important that the issues that affect them are discussed in Parliament. The fact that we disagree on future energy policy does not mean that we should not explore the challenges in the sector.

I am aware of individuals who have wider interests. I sit on the Chapelcross site stakeholder group, and I regularly attend a range of nuclear-related events, such as the event that was held in Parliament just the other week, which a large number of people came to. Therefore, there is interest in engaging with the Parliament on the issue. There has been talk of having a CPG on the nuclear industry for pretty much the whole time that I have been an MSP, but, because of the political space in which we operate, it has been difficult to get that off the ground.

A number of people in the industry and a number of individuals are interested, but they are keen to see whether the group will be established before committing themselves. I have had conversations with people in the supply chain and a number of individuals who work in the sector. Given the range of MSPs who are involved and their geographical relationship with the sites, I am confident that those people will join the group. Along with the other co-convener and the deputy convener, I intend to write to anyone we think would be interested in joining, in an effort to make the membership of the group as broad as possible.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

South of Scotland Enterprise recently acquired land at Chapelcross, near Annan, and there has been a strong expression of interest from ReBlade—a Scotland-based company that recycles and repurposes wind turbines, which normally go to landfill. The project is a welcome opportunity to create many new local jobs and an opportunity for the environment, and it seems a natural fit with the longer-term plans to establish a green energy park on the wider site. Will the Scottish Government get behind the plans and look to see what additional support can be offered through its agencies to get the project over the line?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider carrying out an analysis of the potential impact of renewable energy and the associated infrastructure on farmland and food production in Dumfriesshire. (S6O-02868)

On top of wind farm applications, solar farm applications and power lines, constituents in my Dumfriesshire constituency are aware of a deluge of applications for battery storage, many of which appear to be on good agricultural ground and do not seem to be subject to the same level of scrutiny. Will the minister commit to looking further into and reviewing that issue?

That is not the feedback that I often get from young people in my constituency. Those living in rural areas find those programmes very hard to access, and good services that have cross-party support, such as the Usual Place in Dumfries, do not meet the criteria for funding. Will the minister look at that again?

Sanctioning is one of the very difficult issues about the welfare system—I do not hide from that for a second. However, we must have a system that is fair and that encourages people to interact with it within the rules that everyone is asked to follow. That presents challenges, but I am concerned that we are too keen to look to welfare as the first solution for many people who face difficulties in getting into work. Things can be done now to make a real difference for people.

That is why I am talking about the Usual Place—a model that operates in Dumfries and Galloway that works and is genuinely life saving. Some young people who have accessed it would not be here today if it had not been for that opportunity. They are moving into long-term, sustainable employment and getting one-to-one personalised support. Some of those young people have gone on to set up their own businesses. Something really powerful is happening.

However, we have the DWP on one side and Social Security Scotland on the other, as well as a myriad of Government schemes, and we are told that something that is very precious to people in Dumfries and Galloway does not fit into the silos that we have created for funding and support. I suspect that it is just one of hundreds of similar organisations across Scotland that could do something about the disability employment gap, particularly in rural communities such as the Highlands and Islands and Dumfries and Galloway, in which a significantly higher number of disabled people struggle to find employment.

We can get too focused on some of the political differences that exist in relation to the welfare system and not tackle some of the obvious, immediate and solvable challenges in our education system and in the support that comes after. We can all have bold ambitions, but, if those are not meaningful to the people whom we serve and represent, can we really be happy? Twenty-five years in, has the Scottish Parliament lived up to the promises that we have repeatedly made and that we make again today? Are we going to start delivering for people on the ground?

It is not good enough for things to stagnate or to move backwards. We all need to fight a bit harder to make sure that life gets better for our constituents.