Chamber and committees

I am glad to hear that your inboxes are so full, although I am sorry for your staff who are dealing with that. It shows the strength of feeling in support of the proposals.

Ms Duncan-Glancy is right that the proposal will not, in itself, change any of that, but it is the first step on the road. The current entitlement is fit for the 20th century, not the 21st century. An employment advisory council would have the expertise of people with lived experience of 21st century workplaces. There would be expertise from epidemiologists and other experts in the field. There would be a gender balance on the council to ensure that illnesses and injuries in workplaces that are predominantly female were reflected. As I said in my opening statement, only 6.5 per cent of applications currently come from women. If an equality impact assessment was done of the benefit today, it would immediately say that that was entirely inappropriate.

For me, all those aims and objectives are the end point, but the starting point is to establish the council, with its expertise and its ability to commission research, to start to address those challenges.

The minister has set out that he intends to introduce legislation to establish employment injury assistance. That is obviously something that the Government has to do as a result of the Scotland Act 2016 and the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. What the minister has not mentioned, and what the Government has not committed to, is establishing an advisory council to scrutinise the regulations on the new entitlement that the minister would lay. I believe that it is crucial that research is carried out in advance of that entitlement being established.

We can either lift and replicate what I feel is a failed and completely out-of-date UK system or we can get the expertise on board early, set up the council, advise the Government and scrutinise the regulations. All the parties in the Parliament and the Government have accepted that it is right to have an independent statutory body to scrutinise social security legislation—indeed, that is why we have the Scottish Commission on Social Security. I am just asking us to go a step further and create another body that has the expertise to look in depth at the range of injuries and illnesses in Scottish workplaces, with the aim of updating the benefit in question to ensure that it best serves the people of Scotland.

Previously, we have heard from Councillor Evison and COSLA about the principles that you think should shape the new fiscal framework. Are you now in a position to describe how that would work in practice?

That certainty of funding is critical. The United Kingdom Government has recently published a multiyear spending review. I know that COSLA wants the Scottish Government to deliver that, too. Early as it might be, following on from the UK Government’s announcement, what discussions have you had with the Scottish Government on confirming whether local authorities will receive multiyear settlements to give them that certainty and ability to plan?

According to the 2019 Scottish household survey, only 18 per cent of people feel that they can influence decisions affecting their local area, which seems to be a significant reduction since the passing of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Why has that happened? What are the barriers to people influencing decisions, and how will the local governance review address them?

My question is about category 5, which covers houses, land and buildings, in section 4, which is called “Registration of Interests”. I have always been concerned that councillors seem to be held to a higher standard than MSPs and MPs, in that councillors need to register an interest in their family home, whether that is as owner, part-owner or tenant. Will you say why it was felt important to maintain that requirement?

There have been instances in which overzealous recording of a councillor’s property has meant that home addresses have been made available online, which has caused safeguarding issues. We have seen some high-profile safeguarding issues in the national press recently, and other instances of bullying, intimidation and aggression towards councillors. Was consideration given to putting councillors on a par with parliamentarians by taking out the need for them to register an interest in their home?

Are you saying that the distinction is purely that councillors deal with planning issues so there needs to be that connection with where they live?

Okay.

The Deputy First Minister’s previous answer has led to my question, which is about what will happen next. He has set out this morning, and previously in writing, the Government’s obligation to lay the regulations. What is the Government’s position on the proposals? Is it satisfied with all of them? What would its proposed course of action be if the Parliament chose to reject some, or all, of the Scottish statutory instruments? What would be the potential timetable for revised proposals, and would it align with a wider review of mainland local authorities?

I have a broad question on net zero for the witnesses. What are their views on the adequacy of the Scottish Government’s plan to achieve the net zero carbon emissions target?

I also have a more specific question. As we are looking at targets to remove carbon emissions from heating systems by 2025, what certainty does the sector have? Some of the sites that have been identified for purchase and development as we edge into 2022 will need to have plans for zero-emission heating systems now.

I direct that question to Nicola Barclay first.