Seòmar agus comataidhean

My final question is on the Scottish National Investment Bank’s role in the just transition. As it stands, is SNIB investing enough in support for companies that are moving to a just transition position, and in particular manufacturers and the supply chain? There have been some very good investments, but I am not entirely convinced that the area is being considered enough.

It is an interesting conversation. In many respects, I share Mr Leonard’s views about the use of local government pension schemes; I am not quite so sure that that fits in with this bill. We should point out that, while Falkirk Council did invest in housing, it removed itself from that approach quite quickly—which, I think, was to its detriment.

I agree that the Government and the Parliament should look in more depth at how local government pension schemes are invested. I am not entirely sure that this is the place for that. However, I am willing to have a further conversation with Mr Leonard about those investments, because they are important and we are not getting the best out of them for communities in Scotland.

I agree that a lot of the amendments mention specific bodies, some of which do not really want to be involved, as we have heard. Beyond that, I do not see the scope for the inclusion of some bodies that are listed in the amendments.

Beyond the bill itself, however, Mr Leonard has a good point about pension funds. Would the minister commit to looking at how we can better deal with pension funds with regard to not only community wealth building but investment in Scotland? In my opinion, that is an untapped resource. Beyond that, it is quite galling to see pension funds investing in wind farms in Vietnam—not that I have anything against Vietnam—when they could be doing similar here and likely get a better, and less risky, return. Would the minister be open to further conversations on that front?

There has been less spending in the first few years. Do you see that accelerating as we move forward?

Could the Deputy First Minister talk to colleagues to look at the cross-cutting nature of some of that work and to see whether other budgets could come into play to find that revenue?

Thank you. That is probably the briefest I have ever been, convener.

Will the minister give way?

As an Aberdeen MSP and north-east loon, I think that, given that one in every six jobs in the north-east are energy related, if there is not a just transition for those workers, we are in real trouble.

Professor Underhill, in relation to your four recommendations as well as the issues of meeting climate compatibility and retaining energy security, is Norway following your line when the UK seems not to be interested? Have the Norwegians got it right? Are they following what you suggest?

I will expand a little on the deputy convener’s line of questioning. The minister has pointed out the way in which the issue will be dealt with if incidents happen during the course of travel. However, as many members around the table have experienced, the complaints are mainly about where the antisocial behaviour takes place. People travel on the bus, get off the bus, commit the antisocial behaviour, then get back on the bus. A prime example of such behaviour is in the Union Square shopping centre in Aberdeen. Lots of folk are saying, “Why on earth have these kids got the ability to travel from one end of the city to the other to cause chaos, then go away?”

We need to know where all of this applies—whether it is just on the bus or where folk have used free travel to get to an area and cause antisocial behaviour there. We need more clarity on that.

Beyond that, what your officials have described is basically that criminality would have to have taken place in order for the card to be withdrawn. That is grand, but there is a fine line between what some folks would see as antisocial behaviour and what others would see as annoyance. The code of conduct needs to be explicit about such things.

When I was going home the other week on the Megabus, a woman on the bus barked orders at her dog all the way from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. Quite frankly, it was doing me in—but, let us be honest, that is not any reason to take away the woman’s bus pass.

We need to say explicitly where the lines are. Is it only criminality? What constitutes antisocial behaviour? We cannot do that, sitting here today. How are you going to convince the committee, minister, that what you are embarking on—which I think is the right thing to do—covers all the bases that we want to be covered and, beyond that, is fair and equitable?

The original question was about the Scottish Government’s position, but we know that the future of oil and gas production and licensing in the North Sea is reserved to the UK Government.

Mr Whitehouse said that 75 per cent of our energy use still comes from oil and gas and that 75 per cent of energy jobs are still in oil and gas. To lose that without other jobs being available would be disastrous. Your organisation has said that you want politicians to commit to continued licensing and that you want reform of the energy profits levy before 2030. What will happen if that is not the case? What will happen if we do not follow Norway’s route of continuing to drill in fields that have already been explored?