Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am very pleased to hear that, minister, because a huge amount of the language that is used in some of the legislation is very outdated indeed—and, in fact, insulting to people.

You talked about changes that can be made in primary legislation. Without doubt, the opportunity for that is there as the Government moves forward with the primary legislation required by the Scott review recommendations. I take it that, when it reaches that stage, you will be willing to ensure that whatever comes out of that review is reflected in the regulations that you set in the future, as you expand from your “starting small” proposal.

Where are the other data gaps? You may wish to bring in your colleagues to answer that.

Do any of your colleagues want to comment on some of those questions about data gaps and experiences?

I know that it is, convener. I am not criticising you in any way, shape, or form; I am criticising the legislation as it has been formulated over many years.

As we move forward and reach new definitions, if that is where we go, I wonder whether we can bear in mind the work that has been undertaken during Lord John Scott’s mental health law review, so that what we come up with there, as that goes through the legislative process, becomes embedded, if you like, in your regulations. Do you think that that can be done?

You also spoke about community ownership, which brings me to a point about experiences and outcomes. In your initial comments, you or one of your colleagues mentioned Aberdeen Community Energy’s Donside community hydro project, which is community owned and took place long before we even thought of a just transition. How do we capture the knowledge and data that has been gathered by that community and its leaders Sinclair Laing and Jane Fullerton? How do we capture those experiences to allow other communities to achieve their potential and reach their goals, as Donside village has done?

Can I ask just one final question, convener?

How do we get communities to help you to build that place-based just transition data dashboard?

I want to ask about a number of issues that are related to data and measurements, but also to outcomes and experience. I have never come across an academic who has said that we do not need any more data. I recognise that there are data gaps—witnesses might want to highlight where they think some of those gaps are, but first I want to tease out areas that you have already mentioned where there could be difficulties in relation to data, and where sometimes we tie ourselves in knots.

Let me give you an example of when we sometimes tie ourselves in knots. Witnesses have said that we need to create a standardised classification of green jobs because the current industry and occupational classifications are not detailed enough. I will use an example from a conversation that I had the other week about how we are not producing enough software engineers and how we need to boost the educational prospects of folk who want to enter software engineering. How could we classify whether a software engineer is working in a green capacity or in a green job?

Could witnesses cover some of those gaps and foibles in data gathering?

I will move on a little bit. We have talked quite a lot about eligibility and criteria. Again, you have said that you would be flexible in relation to looking at change and not simply allowing this for folk with compulsory treatment orders. The convener talked about some other aspects of law and some of the old-fashioned criteria that are often in those laws. I think that the convener used the term “severely mentally impaired”, which does not sit well with me, I have to say.

It is very brief.