Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

I will try to finish answering the first intervention before doing that.

There are alternative and more humane methods available to manage wild mammals and protect the environment, and, of course, the use of two dogs would continue to be allowed.

If members do not support the amendments to remove licensing, amendments 116 and 130, in my name, would allow NatureScot to require licence applicants to meet standards in the application process that could be drawn up in line with an ethical framework such as the international consensus principles for ethical wildlife control, which is an existing international example of such standards. The principles would bring significant animal welfare benefits if embedded in Scottish Government and societal practices. They would provide a framework to guide decisions on whether, when and how wildlife interventions should take place, and they would ensure that ethical reasoning is applied, evidence is consulted and animal welfare is prioritised. Perhaps most importantly, the principles invite a shift in mindset, recognising that each animal is sentient and deserves equal consideration, regardless of the category that humans have put them in. That is a key point.

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.

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. Your report of December 2020 made five specific recommendations, on improvements in sectors where performance was poor, such as agriculture and fishing; improvements for disabled workers, ethnic minorities and women; conditionality in grants; access to training; and collective bargaining.

Patricia Findlay has touched on the progress that has been made, which has been primarily on payment of the living wage. The Scottish Government has now made a commitment to link the provision of grants to payment of the living wage. That is an area where we have seen progress, but I am keen to know about the areas in which you have not yet seen it. What policy levers should the Scottish Government use to deliver such 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.

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?