Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a more joined-up approach, you mentioned data centres, but we could be talking about heat. In fact, there are all sorts of opportunities.

I could go on for hours, convener, but I suspect that I should hand back to you to let us move on to the next question.

We have seen massive investment in renewables, whether onshore or offshore wind or solar. I go back to the point that money has been invested. What areas need more investment if we are to get the delivery? In relation to the new industrial decarbonisation programme, the figure looks very small—2.1 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in emission reductions—but that is the biggest amount in this chapter and it really grows over the next few decades. How will that be delivered in practice? Professor Turner, do you want to come in on that?

Thank you. Back to you, convener.

I suppose that the challenge is that we need to get all of it right at the same time and think about how we future proof the bill.

In evidence to the committee, Professor Robbie highlighted the power of property rights and the risk of unintended consequences if certain items were given property status without our thinking through what the impact could be.

You have just talked about thinking ahead to the future, but there is nothing in the bill about how the legislation will be future proofed. How is that going to happen? It is not addressed in the policy memorandum. Will the Scottish Government commit to undertaking an audit of the potential impact of the bill across Government and non-Government activities?

That goes back to my question about whether the Government will consider undertaking an audit of the potential impact of the bill across Government and non-Government activities. Perhaps you will reflect on that.

Several witnesses from the technology sector have given evidence to the committee, and their view was that the concept and the definition were not easily recognised by those working in the field. The committee was given several suggestions in that regard, such as producing guidance or statutory guidance, or adding further clarification in the explanatory notes on the bill.

How does the Scottish Government intend to bridge that gap?

I suppose that we have to think about the bill from those two different perspectives. We have to consider how the bill will operate and how tech will change over time.

This morning, I was reading through the supplementary evidence from Greg McLardie following his evidence to the committee last week. He referred to Professor Robbie’s evidence and talked about a potential financial risk to the Scottish Government in relation to carbon credits, the woodland carbon code and the peatland code.

There are high-level issues, but witnesses have also given detailed evidence about their concerns. I was hoping that the minister would pick that up. We cannot make everything perfect, but, given that witnesses are raising concerns at this point, we need to tease out the issues in respect of what is in the guidance or the policy memorandum. Do you agree?

It is challenging, but what colleagues have put on the record today is important, because it logs that there is an appetite for change and that there are both opportunities and major challenges. Before we get to stage 3, there is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to engage with us constructively so that we can reflect on the comments that have been made and make sure that, as this piece of legislation goes through, we do not miss another opportunity, because change is needed now.

Amendment 17, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 31 not moved.

You say that the amendment would, in effect, result in overlap and repetition, but, with regard to its purpose, do you not accept that all of the issues that I have been talking about, and some of the other issues that colleagues have mentioned this morning, need to be brought into the previous marine plan that you say exists but that lots of stakeholders are not satisfied with?

This has been quite a constructive debate, because there is ambition to make things happen. The cabinet secretary said a few times that an amendment would involve duplicating powers that ministers already have. That illustrates that people want to see action. It is not enough just to have a power; it is about how it is used, monitored and reflected on. There has been a constructive discussion, but there is a need for more action.

It is critical to link the national marine plan and regional marine plans and to give them a local focus that involves communities, not only to bring people around the table but to lead to action that will improve their lives and our environment.

The fact that we are in a nature and climate emergency means that things are changing. I get that research is being done and that things do not change immediately, but we need to start doing survey work and planning ahead now. There will be tipping points involving things such as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation that we need to start reflecting on now. We need joined-up thinking and action—there are opportunities as well as challenges.

The responses from both cabinet secretaries have been relatively constructive and positive. If members do not move amendments today because of what we have been told by the cabinet secretaries, that means that there is a clear appetite for further discussion before stage 3, so that we do not accidentally miss out on addressing the very good points that stakeholders have made to us. If our amendments, as currently crafted, do not take the ideal approach—if, for example, they introduce inadvertent duplication or are not perfect—I would like us to get them right before stage 3.

If there are not to be further amendments on an issue, there needs to be an explanation—now or very soon—from the Scottish Government about what is happening. These matters cannot be kicked into touch. It is not just about the pressure from stakeholders; there is a real need to see practical action, so that we deliver where there is a degree of agreement around the table. That is critical. If there is a consultation on the way, we need to know what that means. That is key.

Some of the amendments will be moved today, but others will not be. There is an appetite for change and for more action. Change is under way, but we need to ensure that it is communicated effectively to our communities and to key stakeholders, so that we do not just kick all this into touch and say that the most recent marine legislation sorted everything so we do not need to do anything. The fact that we have amendments shows that people feel that we need action.