Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 5 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2565 contributions

|

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Adult Disability Payment

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Bob Doris

I do not want to get caught up in this, so I will just move on to the next question, which I hope does not sound like a daft-laddie one. How can we objectively measure fairness, dignity and respect? I am unclear about that.

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Adult Disability Payment

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Bob Doris

Because of time constraints, it will have to be brief.

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Adult Disability Payment

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Bob Doris

Are you talking about the end-to-end process?

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Adult Disability Payment

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Bob Doris

I think that that was perhaps a “maybe”, Mr Balfour. I call Carol Mochan.

Social Justice and Social Security Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Bob Doris

That concludes our public business for the day, and we move into private session.

10:42 Meeting continued in private until 11:03.  

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 25 November 2025

Bob Doris

Yes, convener. I just want to put on record what is on page 8 of the briefing that has been prepared for us on this matter. It says:

“A voluntary phaseout by 2025 on the use of lead shot that was led by UK shooting organisations has been shown to be largely ineffective at minimising the use of lead ammunition, and therefore effective regulation is required in this case.”

If UK shooting organisations were content to go for a voluntary phase-out, they must have thought it a practical thing to do, even though it turned out not to be successful in driving the change that we want to see.

I also note that—and this is verbatim from the briefing in front of us:

“The Agency only considered a restriction where appropriate alternatives were available, therefore small calibre bullets (=6.17mm) for live quarry shooting have not been included in the restriction as there was insufficient evidence that viable alternatives were available.”

I do not have any background in this matter, convener, but a briefing that has been prepared for us ahead of this committee meeting seems to substantiate the idea that this was a reasonable thing to do.

I get that your experience in this is very bespoke, convener, but it is only fair to put the alternative view or position on the record this morning, given that it is in our briefing papers.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 25 November 2025

Bob Doris

I will follow up on that with Dr Dixon and if Clare Wharmby or Professor Roy wants to come in with any reflections, please do, and then I will go to my second question, convener.

Is it about whether Governments get it right or wrong, or is it about the modelling work that they use to predict what will happen? A lot of modelling work will be done on behaviour. Earlier we heard about behavioural change and how households and individuals will buy into it. Clare Wharmby spoke about incentives and disincentives and how to trigger some behavioural change rather than asking people to buy into the overall plan. We want businesses and sectors to change how they do their business, and that will impact every aspect of life.

None of this is an exact science. It is all based on modelling work, which, by definition, gives best guesstimates of what will happen if different inputs are put into policies. No model will ever get it perfect. I suppose, convener, that I am saying that it is not about whether Governments are right or wrong; it is about whether they are using the best and most appropriate set of modelling assumptions to get to those estimates. Maybe the Government has not shown its working, convener.

Are there any thoughts about changing the narrative on that, Dr Dixon? None of it is exact. All of it is about modelling work. Should the Government show a bit more of its workings and be open and straightforward about the fact that, by definition, models are not an exact science?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 25 November 2025

Bob Doris

That is helpful. Before we go on to my second question, does Clare Wharmby or Graeme Roy want to come in? You do not need to do so, but do you want to reflect on any of that before I move on?

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 25 November 2025

Bob Doris

So, it might be a matter of having a bigger suite of early warning indicators, whatever they may be. The committee would like to know where witnesses believe there are gaps in identifying data sources and gaps in the details of methods used. We are not experts in this area, but we are pretty good at scrutinising. We are relying on witnesses to identify where those gaps might be.

Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]

Draft Climate Change Plan

Meeting date: 25 November 2025

Bob Doris

Given that the Scottish Government is being asked for more certainty in its budget commitments to tackle net zero for the first five years, in the first instance, should it be clearer about what it expects that it should get directly from the UK Government in order to play its part, not just with regard to what the UK Government does at UK level on reserved matters to meet net zero ambitions but with regard to the money that is transferred from the UK to Scotland for the devolved aspects? Should the Scottish Government be quantifying what it expects to get from the UK Government—not in a political way—if there is going to be a partnership approach to funding net zero?