Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to committee members. I should say up front that I am not an expert on nuclear science, but I am clear, as an MSP with a legacy nuclear site in my constituency, that such sites are significant and they have a continued social, economic and environmental impact, as do other aspects of the civil nuclear industry across Scotland.

I and a number of the other members who are interested in forming the group consider that the area does not currently get the scrutiny or interest at Holyrood that it merits. We recognise that there is no collective view across the Parliament on the future of nuclear policy. However, a large number of people are employed in the sector and there will continue to be a significant nuclear footprint in Scotland for decades to come.

We are trying to create a space in which the policy issues affecting communities and individuals whom we represent can be explored in more detail. Our intention is to focus initially on those aspects in which cross-party support exists—skills and skill shortages, the supply chain and the role for communities in shaping the future of existing nuclear sites. We are also particularly keen to explore and highlight decommissioning work. The decommissioning sector will be a major employer and will have a significant economic and environmental impact in Scotland.

I am happy to take any questions that the committee might have. I am hopeful that the group will work well and will be an opportunity to create the forum that we refer to in our purpose statement.

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.

Good morning. Thank you for making the time in your schedule to come to the Parliament. I am particularly concerned about a number of the delegated powers in the bill, particularly those in section 5, on the regulatory objectives and principles. The Lord President wrote to the convener of the DPLR Committee setting out some concerns. He said in that letter that his withholding consent would not be a “veto” and flagged up the risk of judicial review.

Will you elaborate on how that might come about?

The minister who is taking forward the bill wrote to the committee on 16 November. In relation to section 5 and some other sections, there was a suggestion that it might be possible to narrow the scope of the changes so that they are possible only at the recommendation of certain bodies.

In terms of more specific detail on what amendments might look like, we heard from the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society that there were no amendments in relation to section 5 that would make it acceptable. If there were further amendments to the bill, would that alleviate your concerns?

Should section 5, for example, be able to be changed only by primary legislation?

I will leave it there, convener.

Would you recognise that what is proposed in the bill is a significant expansion of that? The mechanism in the current statute is a one-off, whereas the one that is proposed in the bill runs right through the topics that the bill covers. The range of provisions to which the mechanism applies and their potential reach are far wider than in previous legislation. Is that fair?