 Fy enw i ddod i ddydd y 30 y ddydd gwrdd 2023 o'r Gweithio i Gweithgatau Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Cymwyth. Fy enw ymgyrch gynnwys ar gwaith y bydd y mae'r cyhoeddais ar gyfer y cymaint Cymru i Gwyrdd Sgolennu Gwyrdd Cymru ar y pryd. Fy enw ar gyfer y Gwyrdd Cymru i Gwyrdd Cymunedig, Gweithfyrdd Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Fawr Cymwyth, The Bankruptcy sought her by, who joined by Richard Dennis- юw, director of angym in Bankruptcy and Agency Watched Executive, and James Claillans L Sixeter. I'd also like to welcome Douglas Lums in MSP who is attending the public part of this meeting this morning. I now invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you, and good morning to the committee. The Bankruptcy and Dilligenceink, review and resupply in Bow mayor, will bring forward stakeholders-led recommendations to introduce improvements a ddeprwg ddylau o'r proses i'r bwysig. Wrth iddynt rwy'n rhoi'r gweithio, ond mae Iaith Oeddaёт yn bwysig o'r Llywodraeth Radwg i'r Cabinet Rai. Trwy'r cyllid, hynny, mae'n mynd yn ei ddibon, ac yn y bwysig o'r cyllid, os actor. Rwy'n rhaid o'r wytnodyniad, yn ni'n rhaid o'r mwy o ffondimentol. Bydd yn yngyrch ar yr oedbu'r gwאתio a heddiw gwneud o un pwyllfa oeddo. Again, you will have heard from previous witnesses that they are not seeking changes to the bill so much as seeking additional things to add to it. The measures in the bill have been and are being very much designed with and by the stakeholder community. I would like to pay tribute to the work of all stakeholders whose recommendations are being brought forward and enabled by this bill. lead by that bill. In particular, I would like to commend the members of the Mental Health Moratorium working group. The members of the working group include mental health professionals who are able to contribute professional expertise in the field of mental health and draw lessons from the Mental Health Crisis Moratorium introduced in England and Wales in 2021. We are, as the committee will be aware, currently consulting on the details of what a mental health moratorium enabled by that bill would look like. On that, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the committee, but it did not receive advanced notice of the publication of the consultation. But I hope that by officials having worked hard to publish this as soon as possible, it will give the committee sufficient time to consider the consultation as part of its stage 1 deliberations. I would also want to state to the committee that we will, of course, ensure that the committee has sight of the draft regulations prior to them being laid in Parliament formally. This bill is, of course, only one part of a programme of work to improve bankruptcy and diligence. We will be introducing changes through secondary legislation, some of which I hope to lay before Parliament during the progress of the bill. We have also commissioned a longer-term review to assess how far current statutory solutions meet the needs of a modern economy. Committee members will know that the Von McDermid OB accepted an appointment to lead the stage 3 review, and there will be some matters that merit further consideration as part of the review. I thank you minister. I recognise the apologies that we have made this morning in terms of the consultation on the data proposals for the mental health moratorium. The delay has made it more difficult for the committee to scrutinise in some ways, and I also appreciate that you have confirmed that we will receive the regulations in draft form. Is it a timescale that you can share with us this morning around when we can expect that to appear? I am conscious, convener, that this was a matter that you raised directly with the First Minister as part of the convener's group. Certainly, it will be endeavouring to be able to bring forward a draft of the regulations ahead of stage 3. Obviously, recognising it, regulations would only be able to be formally laid should the bill be passed by Parliament. I will now bring in Colin Smyth to be followed by a message from him. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister. I kick off, I suppose, the questions around the mental health moratorium, which obviously was raised quite a lot in the evidence that the committee heard. I appreciate that the detail will be covered by the regulations, but one of the issues that has been raised is the criteria for the mental health moratorium to be used. As things currently stand, it will only be available to those in compulsory treatment based on the Government's position. What is the thought behind that? Roughly how many people do you expect that criteria to cover? I think that, as the committee has taken evidence on in earlier sessions, there is a recognition that the number of people who are likely to make use of the mental health moratorium would be relatively small. With regard to the rationale, with the point of alignment with existing statutory provisions, for example under the 2003 act, it comes from a place of wanting to ensure clarity, but also from a point of view of being able to start small and behind having the opportunity through learning and further review and reflection to potentially expand or amend the criteria. I know that approach, which is afforded to us by using regulations. It is something that has been welcomed and received a positive reception from those within the advice community. I would not want to say that this will be how the process will necessarily continue at Invenitum, but in terms of a starting point, giving us a new set of provisions that we would be introducing, having that alignment with those existing statutory provisions provides clarity around eligibility. Even if we have that quite tightly defined criteria to begin with, there is still a concern that not anybody that meets that criteria, not everyone that meets that criteria, will still be, I suppose, to take up the moratorium. Citizens Advice Scotland has called for everyone who enters compulsory treatment to be automatically offered access to a mental health moratorium. Is that something the Government would consider as well rather than simply waiting for those who are working with somebody to effectively apply for that moratorium? In terms of the process, we set out the proposal within the consultation where it would begin with the mental health professional, so it would be individual. We would already be receiving support from that through the money adviser then to AIB, but we seek further views on that as part of the consultation process. Again, what we are sticking to do is to provide clarity and clear definitions with eligibility, but it is also important to recognise that there are other provisions within our suite of support that exist, for example, the existing moratorium, which is available. In terms of its introduction as proposed by the draft consultation, it would be for those in the most acute and severe mental crisis where they would be subject to the compulsory treatment provision set out within statute. The process by which that would be affected or the proposed process by how that would be affected is set out within the consultation, but, as I said in my earlier answer, subject to the legislation that has been approved by the Parliament and the regulations that have been approved, we would of course reflect and review and continue to engage the effectiveness of the scheme and would be open to further consideration of changes in light of experience. As I understand, the regulations that you will publish in draft before stage 3 will simply refer to compulsory treatment as a criteria. You are obviously carrying out a consultation at the moment. The timing of that consultation is not such that the regulations may differ. Well, the consultation closes in January, I think it is at 22 January, from memory. It is, of course, unlikely that we will be able to complete the independent analysis process ahead of being able to ensure the draft, the regulations that we would like. We would certainly endeavour to, it may be possible, but what we would do is be able to provide a summary of the responses, but it will be the consultation responses that help to inform those draft regulations. Of course, engagement with the committee will further inform what we bring forward as final regulations. I would also want to state that I am open to a further public consultation on the draft regulations beyond simply sharing them with the committee to explore those matters in further detail. What we have set out is a series of proposals that reflect the recommendations of the expert work on group, and we are seeking further views on that through the public consultation that we launched earlier this month. I am still not quite clear of the timescale. Are you saying that it may be that the regulations that you publish will have effectively a response to the consultation that may or may not change that criteria from what we are currently thinking? Of course, we are consulting for that very reason, if I were to say that we had already decided what it would be. No, I am just getting that. As whatever you decide is the timing of your consultation, the timing of the parliamentary process for publishing those regulations before stage 3, is that going to give you sufficient time? Should you decide that you want to change the criteria? Will you find yourself in a position whereby you bring the criteria on compulsive treatment in the end a few months later and decide that you are going to change it based on your consultation? We are not going to artificially compress the timescale with regard to what would prevent us from taking a fully considered view about what regulations are brought forward formally to be laid before Parliament. What we are trying to do is to ensure that the committee has as early sight as possible of the draft regulations. We would hope that the analysis is complete at that point to help and inform the committee's deliberations. Based on preliminary analysis of the responses to the consultation, that will inform the draft regulations that we bring forward. The concern for me is to ensure that what has been a highly collaborative process informed by expert opinion to get to this point continues as we work towards preparation of the regulations, both informed by the consultation with the draft regulations that we bring before the committee, with that potential for further public consultation input from the committee. From that process, cumulatively, we have been able to bring forward the final set of regulations to Parliament to be laid formally for approval, which can command the widest support and reflect all of the engagement that will be undertaken. I hope that the minister would reflect on the criteria that has been suggested for Scotland as the narrowest criteria. In England and Wales, it is a bit broader. It is not much broader, but it includes people who are receiving crisis treatment, not just compulsory treatment. I had a meeting with one parent families in the poverty alliance. The people I met with there, they would not be able to access the scheme even though they feel that the mental health pressures that they get from being in debt are significant, but the scheme would not apply to them because of the nanos of the criteria. The suggestion that we could look at the council tax legislation is that we want it to be consistent with other pieces of legislation, but understanding is that the criteria for council tax uses severely and mentally impaired, which still sets quite a high threshold, but not as high as the one that has been suggested by the Government. I hope that the minister will reflect on the proposal that we understand is coming forward at the moment as a very narrow definition in order to access the scheme that has been proposed. Yes, I want to again say early on in the session that I appreciate that there are a number of issues that we are likely to touch on that have been raised by witnesses over the course of the evidence that the committee is taking. I am very keen to see the committee's stage 1 report before considering what further proposals the Government brings forward and would want to give the commitment that the considerations that the committee shares through its stage 1 report will help to inform the process that we take forward, along with the consultation in the drafting of the regulations. Those are points that I am very keen to consider further. As I said, I set out the rationale of effectively starting small with that opportunity to expand, but there will be significant further opportunity afforded for consideration of the detailed proposals in the regulations. Thank you. Maggie Chapman, be followed by Kevin Stewart. Thank you very much. Good morning, Minister. Thank you for joining us this morning. Just continuing on the questions around the mental health moratorium in, given what you say about the limiting criteria and that starting small and with the potential to expand over time based on lessons learned, I'm interested in just how we will ensure that people who might benefit from the moratorium, people who might be advising on the moratorium, people who might be supporting debtors with either mental health or money advice issues, how they will be aware of exactly what the moratorium entails, what its criteria are, what mechanisms do you have in mind for ensuring awareness across mental health professionals, across money advice sector and across others who support people in financial difficulty or mental health difficulty? I'm conscious that this has been an area of substantial interest of the committee and it's occupied quite a bit of the evidence that the committee has been taking and it's found that very, very useful in terms of informing or enhancing my understanding. Clearly, we want to ensure that there is the widest uptake of this scheme where it is appropriate and applicable to individual circumstances. We will want to, as we have been doing and made reference to this being a stakeholder led process and very much a process of collaboration, that will inform subject to the union of parliament the process of implementation where we would want to continue to work very closely and has, I think, has been recognised by the committee and highlighted by several of the expert witnesses that the committee has heard from, that need for a joined up and collaborative approach will be important. That involves, of course, building on the skill sets that money advisers have in their understanding but also for mental health professionals as well. We will want to engage closely to fully understand what support can be provided but key to that, of course, will be ensuring the widest possible awareness of the existence of the scheme should it be agreed to by parliament and that will be a clear priority in implementation. You see that happening if and when the legislation is passed by parliament. You see that happening prior to coming into force. I think already because of the process with which these proposals have been developed has already seemed substantial engagement. There is a clear awareness across the sector. This is an issue that is under consideration by parliament. Sorry, when you say awareness across the sector, do you mean money advice or mental health? Money advice but recognising that there already would be existing overlap in co-ordinated working between those. If the regulation subject to parliament's agreement come into effect then clearly there would be a focus in ensuring that there is a broadest possible awareness and we would be committed to working with the resources at our disposal to ensure that there is the broadest awareness of the scheme and that there is an understanding of how it can be applied and support people in the circumstances who it is designed to benefit. You talk about this process being stakeholder led and I think we've heard quite clearly from several stakeholders of the need for or desire for slightly broader criteria, but I take what you've said on that so far. We've also heard from them, particularly in the money advice sector, the questions they have around their ability to deliver this kind of support given capacity and resource issues. I just wondered whether you had any comment on that at the stage. I think what has been recognised is that the anticipated number of individuals who would be using this scheme would be relatively low. So in terms of placing additional demand on the sector, we anticipated that that would be minimal at least initially. Of course we would want to carefully monitor the number of individuals that were using the scheme and to continue, as we already do, to have that close engagement with the sector to ensure that issues are identified with capacity, specifically related to the introduction of the mental health moratorium, without a position to engage and understand what these challenges are and respond. You'll probably know that what they've done down south is all that advice is delivered to people qualifying for their moratorium. It's delivered by an organisation called Rethink under a separate contract. They've done that because they took the view that you need specialist expertise and experience in order to deal with this particular client group and accepting that dealing with this client group takes more time than it does with dealing with an ordinary member of the public. One of the questions in the consultation is should we be thinking about doing the same? Money advisors have initially been very clear that they all want to have the ability to take a role in this scheme. The question is for a front line money advisor who's getting two, three people a year through the door, does that give them the experience to build up exactly how you take this forward successfully the way they've got used to income maximisation? Because almost every client who comes in to see them will need to go through that process. I think it is an open question and we wait to see their views in response to the question to the consultation. I've been down to see Rethink and I've talked to them about the experiences they've had for I think it's 18 months now of running the scheme down south. They make quite a strong argument that we should be thinking about a specialist advice provision at the moment that the advice community here is saying they'd like it more general. If I can ask a couple of questions around the relationship between the mental health moratorium and what we're referring to as the standard moratorium the six months that people can get relief at the moment, are there any plans to change that six month period to reduce it because it has previously been less and we know elsewhere that that standard moratorium is less? We have previously stated that when the pressures of the cost of living crisis had I think by consensus abated we would reconsider that position but given the challenges that we currently face and that this is very much a live issue that is causing significant distress to many households there are no immediate plans to change the current provisions of six months. I suppose following on from that given the limited criteria or limited eligibility for the mental health moratorium itself is there any possibility under advice or guidance from either mental health professionals or money advisers if people are within that six month standard moratorium for that period to be extended if they are still struggling to to get to grips with their financial situation because of mental health but they don't meet the compulsory treatment order level. Have you given any consideration to that? It's a very interesting question because I recognise that the new answer within your question would just to be if someone was in a standard moratorium and they became subject during that process did meet the criteria then of course they could benefit from that. The situation if I could have understood it correctly reticulated is where someone is in a standard moratorium but develop mental problems with their mental health or wellbeing which don't meet the compulsory disability. We're not given specific consideration to that again there is a need for clarity around criteria both for when a moratorium would begin and indeed for the moratorium would end if we think about the criteria as proposed for the mental health moratorium there is the element which is defined by the period of compulsory treatment and then there is the six month recovery period as well and I would clarify that well six months recovery period aligns with the six month moratorium standard moratorium that is not a fixed link so to speak we recognise it for those who are in a period of recovery will require additional time beyond what may be regarded as a standard a lower period for example 12 weeks as is being suggested is is a where you know a standard moratorium could be with one witness raised that is a potential number in the future so these are these are not fixed or linked so with regards to looking at the existing moratorium we don't have any intention of changing the criteria around for example being able to extend the period of six months at the moment of course recognising that there are opportunities through engagement with individual creditors to seek forbearance etc but there's no specific plans in that space. You might get some interesting responses to the consultation in in in that space my final question if I may on this is around legal capacity and obviously the expectation is that patients will need to have legal capacity to consent to an application for mental health moratorium and I was just wondering if what consideration you've given to circumstances where that might not be the case where somebody doesn't have legal capacity and they don't have you know anyone any representative who could give that consent on their behalf. I recognise that this is a sensitive issue and we specifically I think seek all-correctly views on this within the consultation. I think there's a recognition that if an individual is already experiencing an element of compulsion with regards to treatment would we want to have an additional element of compulsion with regards to their financial circumstances. Of course what there is provision for is as you recognise in your question is for the representative of an individual to take these decisions but with regards to the overall question of capacity again we will carefully reflect upon the views that are both the committee brings forward in its report and indeed with regards to the consultation. We've had some initial discussions with Donna Mackenzie-Skeen as she knows one of the legal experts in this and she's pretty clear there is a way that could be done if it was chosen to be done but she and I think we think it's quite a complex issue about choosing whether you want to do it so it would be possible to have a process by which someone probably in the mental health support team became designated as having the ability to apply for this on behalf of the individual but that is jumping quite a few steps about individual rights. I'll leave it there for now. Minister it was good to hear you say start small and move to expand because I think what we have heard from people is that there has to be flexibility in terms of these regulations as we move forward and there has to be that ability to adapt. You have said that most of this has been stakeholder led but what I'm interested in is how many of the voices of lived experience have we actually heard, have you heard in terms of the formulation of this bill and indeed as we move forward towards the regulations? I'll ask Richard to come in at the moment. My direct and with regards to the more detailed aspects of the working group and the processes that have informed the recommendations, my direct engagement has been with those representatives, many of whom the committee will have heard from as part of this process or received written evidence. That process has been involved with those who are supporting and providing advice for people on their financial circumstances, money and debt. With regards to the work that got us to this play through stage two and the mental health auditorium working group, I'd like to ask Richard what's the comment. I mean I would say to the second hand that the dead advice charities have significant experience of dealing with these people. Rethink in particular had a lot of hints and suggestions for us based on their extended discussions with people going through the process down south. Have we tried to convene a panel of people in mental health crisis to talk to the Government about their debts and how to handle the debts? We haven't. I've found in bankruptcy more generally getting people to talk about lived experience is very difficult and we do rely on the debt advice bodies to sort of pass through their experience of what their clients are facing. Having been a former Minister for Mental Well-being and established a number of lived experience panels, these don't have to be formal and folk will often quite gladly tell you their tale for the simple reason that they don't want anyone else going through what they have gone through. My very strong suggestion would be that, in terms of the work as we go forward, the minister in collaboration with the minister for wellbeing asks some of the lived experience panels that already exist what their life experiences of this kind of situation has been. I think that that would help to formulate much better regulations. That's a very helpful suggestion that I was informed from your expertise in your previous roles and it's one that I'm happy to ensure we take forward. Convener, if I could move on a little bit because we've talked to quite a lot today about eligibility and criteria and again you've said that you would be flexible moving forward in terms of looking at change and not just allowing that for folk with compulsory treatment orders. We've heard the convener talk about some other aspects of law and some of the old-fashioned criteria that are often in those laws. I think that the convener used the term severely, mentally impaired, which does not sit well with me, I have to say. I know it, convener, and I'm not criticising you in any way, shape or form. I'm criticising the legislation as it has been formulated over many years. Minister, in terms of looking at this as we move forward and reaching new definitions, if that's where we go, we can bear in mind the work that has been undertaken during Lord John Scott's mental health law review. What we come up with there, as that goes through the legislative process, becomes embedded, if you like, in your regulations as we move forward. Do you think that that can be done? Yes. As it's been specifically raised with severe mental impairment, this is an area that I've had correspondence with and with my officials and council tax have explored. My understanding or understanding is that it's something that can only be amended via primary legislation. That is a frustration for me. I am very sympathetic to the argument that this is an outdated and stigmatising term that we would want to see changed and brought up today. I certainly would like to share my position, which is that it should, on opportunity, arise where we can amend that in primary legislation. We recognise that it is a very specific change that is required, but I am very alert when looking for opportunities where, within existing legislation, that can be changed. I am certainly looking forward to the wider work. I am conscious that we have a stage 3 review. The McDermott review has been taken forward independently, but I will certainly be looking for opportunities that we have to update and reform the language that we use. I recognise that there are many aspects of a language within bankruptcy and diligence. It is highly technical and can seem somewhat opaque, necessary to those who are not initiated or engaged with this area of law and specialism, and that can create challenges around barriers. The use of language is well unconscious in the point of address and the spice briefing that was prepared at the introduction of the legislation around the use of the term debtor and the stigmatising effect that might have. Those are things that I have had discussions with stakeholders on. I am conscious that there are long-standing reasons for use of some of those aspects of terminology, and it is, of course, important to ensure that, in making any changes, we do not unintentionally create other adverse issues. However, with regard to the central point that you make, Mr Stewart, I am in very much in alignment. I am very pleased to hear that, minister, because I think that a huge amount of the language that is used in some of the legislation is very, very outdated indeed and insulting to people. You talked about changes that can be made in primary legislation, and I think that, without a doubt, the opportunity is there as the Government moves forward in terms of how it deals with the primary legislation that is required with the Scott review recommendations. When that reaches that stage, I take it that you would be willing to ensure that whatever comes out there can be reflected in terms of the regulations that you set in the future as you expand from your starting small proposal. Yes, and I think that, looking longer term, given that we have the stage three review, the outcome of that review and any translations into legislation, I think that, given the timescales, will be a matter for the next Parliament, but I think that is something that I would imagine that the next Parliament will want to consider if, indeed, there is primary legislation more widely on our statutory date solutions if there is a need to update language and that is something that is reflected in the review. I will make some progressive bill. Colin Beattie to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Minister, you have made reference earlier on to capacity within the money advice sector. If I have interpreted it correctly, the assumption is that existing capacity is adequate to deal with potential additional work arising from this new initiative. But there has been concerns expressed about capacity in the money advice sector to deal with supporting people who want access to mental health moratorium. Also, I took on board what Richard Dennis spoke about in terms of the likely volumes and experience that will be gained by individual money advice people. Where is the Scottish Government going to come in here to provide the industry training and perhaps additional funding that might be needed? Are we going to train all the money advisers? Are we going to just have specialist money advisers who deal only with this? In which case, you know, there is obvious capacity issues immediately arise. Money advisers might not be available locally, for example, if they are in a specialist area. How is that going to be handled? I would just want to ensure that I provide clarity here. I understand the exceptional pressure that the money advice sector is currently under as a consequence, in many respects, of the cost of living crisis at its face. I want to be tribute and commend the invaluable work that they do and recognise particularly the significant toll that they can have on their wellbeing and mental health. I know that that was something that was reflected in evidence to the committee, but it is not the kind of job that you can just go home at night and switch off. It stays with you, and I want to commend all those who do that invaluable work. As Richard Dennis touched on, we recognise that there is quite a strong desire of the sector to be involved within the mental health auditorium, but we recognise as well that given the numbers and perhaps the more specialist nature of that particular caseload, there may be a case for taking a different approach. That is why we have specifically flagged this within the consultation and put forward a question. For me, the responses that we get to the consultation and indeed any reflections that the committee has at the stage 1 report, along with further engagement with the sector, will help us to land a position where we can command the broadest consensus. Certainly, I think that what we are all focused on in ensuring, and I know that many advisors are focused on this as well, is ensuring that the best service possible is provided for those individuals who require it. That is why we are open to that process of engagement, recognising what the desire is reflected by the sector to engage, and that there may be other means of delivering that support. I think that the only thing that I would add is that the Scottish Government does already fund annually training for money advisors to the matrix programme, which is delivered at the moment by Money Advice Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland. We can tweak that if some additional training is necessary. My organisation can sometimes do that. For example, we are at the moment going around the country helping people learn how to complete debt arrangement scheme applications properly, making sure that they get bankruptcy applications right first time. This is the sort of thing that we can help with. It is the sort of thing that there is already good provision for programmes like Wiser Advisor that you have probably come across. Although it might take tweaks here to the training programme, given the timing, the sort of timetable we are talking about. The documents talk about the first one of these potentially being available sort of April 25. There is more, I think, in enough time to make sure that the Money Advice community are well trained and well able to deliver their role. I think that some of your witnesses also said that they do already deal with people under severe mental stress on a regular basis already. It might be a slight change in degree, but it is not a change in nature of either their advice or the change of the client group that they are dealing with. In the previous session of Parliament, this committee carried out a scrutiny that mainly covered DAS, but which did reveal huge pressures within the Money Advice sector and the availability of advisors to assist and support people who were in financial difficulty. Clearly, this is going to be a highly specialised area. This is not something that will be easy or simple to do if you are a Money Advisor. You do need the training, you do need the expertise. I think that the Minister said that there might only be three cases a year. There was a question of course whether that gives the level of experience over a period which will give the best support. Is the intention that every single Money Advisor receive training or be authorised in some way to make the judgments that are necessary under this mental health bill? In terms of the process by which it would operate, we have set out a proposal within the consultation where there would have to be that initial process with the mental health professional. With regards to the way in which the second aspect engagement with the Money Advisor would take place, again the proposal would be able to demonstrate to ascertain that the individual understands what the process entails, agrees to it and understands that within the recovery period there will then be an opportunity for any further engagement with the Money Advisor in that period. As Richard touched on, Money Advisors already have an exceptional experience of engaging with individuals who have varying degrees of mental health conditions. In terms of the overall delivery, again this is touched on earlier, something that is reflected within the consultation. I would want to repeat myself but recognise that there is a real desire amongst many within the advice community to be involved. However, perhaps a different approach might be more effective to say that we have been stakeholder-led in developing the policy and I intend to be stakeholder-led in how we implement it as well. Of course bearing the points that Mr Stewart raised to ensure that lived experience is also brought to bear in that process too. Just as the deputy convener has mentioned, it gives me a chance to tell a story about Daz that I have been wanting to tell you this morning. I think that the debt arrangement scheme is now widely thought of as something Scotland can be really proud of. 15,000 people have repaid their debts in full through the scheme. £400 million will have gone back to creditors by the end of this quarter through the scheme. However, when the enabling legislation went through in 2002, the scheme did not really work. It depends how you count it, but there have been somewhere between 17 and 19 sets of regulations before the 2019 regulations, which we think have actually got the scheme into a really strong position now. It is the one scheme that has grown year on year through the pandemic through the cost crisis. It is working really well. It has taken us a long time to work out how to get it to work well. Part of the 2019 reforms was hopefully the debt advice bodies to make their work on the debt arrangement scheme self-financing so that they now get a contribution from what goes back to creditors, goes back to the advice organisation to pay for the costs of that upfront advice. It does take us time to develop these. They are very complex. There are some really big issues in the consultation when we have a mention, for example, is that we are not proposing to give creditors a right of appeal against the award of a mental health moratorium. That is a big issue to grapple with. I would be amazed if we get it right first time or second time, but hopefully with working through the stakeholders, through lived experience, through listening to the debt advice community, we can get to a product that really does drive improvement in people's lives. It might take us a decade to get there. I guess one of the major things that I am circling round to is when that person makes contact with a money advisor, will this ensure that there is the option for a face-to-face discussion? If it becomes a specialised area where there is only a handful of real experts in the money advice area, there will be a tendency for that to be focused probably in the urban areas and so on. People outside that might be expected to go online. I think that all the members around this table deal with vulnerable people. I do not know about others, but I do not deal with any of them online. Especially someone who has mental health issues, it does not seem like the right way to contact and to empathise with that person and take them through a process. The key thing is, will face-to-face advice be available, regardless, because I am suspecting that most of this will have to be face-to-face? Curiously, reef think have found that they do it almost all by telephone, and that is people's preference. I completely agree with you that we need to find a system where the debt advice can be given through the channel and at a time and at a pace that suits the individual, and that will be different for these individuals than it might be for the general population. The scheme proposed in the consultation paper says, initially, all the debt advisor needs to do is explain the scheme to the individual and make sure they want to proceed. That is as far as the debt advice goes until the crisis is over. That would then allow time for face-to-face or whatever channel the individual wishes to pursue at a later date, when they are in a position to do so. I will ask two brief questions about the moratorium before I move off to Gordon MacDonald. The consultation suggests that the Government is considering a public register of those who have participated in a mental health moratorium. Could you share with the committee the reasoning behind that? I will ask Bishop to come in on that. It is about credit of protection. Could you expand a bit more on that? I think that we have heard concerns about someone who decides to access a mental health moratorium. Other members have spoken about stigma around mental health, that if a register exists, it would be a public register that would exist. That means for people's future in terms of whether they are looking for other financial supports. Do you see that there might be a concern that someone who accesses a mental health moratorium that their name is going to be in a public register for everybody to see that there are some concerns around that? We are very aware that it could be unnecessarily stigmatising. I mean, there are existing creditors who will be aware because we will be contacting their existing creditors to say, this individual has access to a moratorium, please don't correspond with them, freeze interest and charges on their accounts. We will let you know when that moratorium reaches the next stage. But for other creditors, people with mental health issues sometimes, for example, might not take rational decisions about seeking further credit. Should a creditor have any ability to know that the individual applying for further credit has already some existing financial problems, existing financial worries, has already in a moratorium? Does that exist for anybody else who has experienced debt problems that is a public register or just be for people who have access to the moratorium? At the moment, how does a creditor, people who have unmanageable debts, how would a creditor know that that person is in that situation? If they are in a statutory debt solution, they will be on the public register that is searchable. If they are not, it will almost certainly be on the credit report. There is a line of argument, it is not one I buy, but for community information it says, because creditors in their lending decisions will almost invariably run a credit report on an individual. The fact that they are defaulting on payments on a regular basis and even in a moratorium model show is that they are not making payments. So it is the default that will show. You could say that gives enough degree of protection. But there are sorts of creditors who don't run credit reports and they are potentially the ones who are most exposed and who can least afford a lending that won't necessarily have much chance of ever being repaid. Do you know if the breathing space in England and Wales, if they have a register of mental health moratorium people who have access, they have a public register? They do. They have a register of all breathing space applications, it doesn't then separate them out. My understanding is if you look at the register, an ordinary breathing space has an end date, and mental health one doesn't. So if you know what you're doing, you can spot that your clients are on a mental health moratorium or not. The other question is around. In England and Wales, the breathing space protects people from eviction and extends to preventing enforceable action against someone who is jointly and severely liable for the debt. That isn't a proposal. There's no proposal to include that in the Scottish moratorium, doesn't it? It's a specific question within the consultation. What it highlights is that it's not something that we are proposing but invites views on it, but in recognition of the different existing statutory protections that exist for example tenants and also recognise and join the several other individuals who would be impacted would have access to the various solutions that are available for anyone else, but of course we'll carefully consider the views that come back in the consultation on that. So it's in the consultation but do you anticipate at the moment that it's something that you would want to include in a Scottish moratorium that would bring it in line with anything? The position that we're set out in the consultation is no but we're asking the question. And finally, prepayment meeters, which I realise are an issue that's reserved, but has the minister given any consideration to where they would fit in relation to moratoriums? It's about the creditor's ability to use a prepayment meter to enforce a prepayment meter onto a household. Is it something that you're aware of or considered and I do realise that it's reserved? Is there any discussion as it would take place with UK Government to deliver on preventing that taking place? There's not been specific discussions unless you can correct me Richard, but it is something aware of and it has been raised by the committee. It's something happy to give further reflection on and see in two days directly with the UK Government as the legislation and hopefully progressives through Parliament. Thank you. Gordon MacDonald. Thank you very much. I want to move on to potential bankruptcy reform issues that have come up during the course of the stage one inquiry that we're carrying out on the bill. The first one is in relation to minimum asset process bankruptcy. A number of organisations, citizens of vice and others have called for that to happen more regularly. Currently, it's once every 10 years you can apply for it and there's been a suggestion that it should be reduced to once every five years in line with the limit for full administrative bankruptcy. What's the Government's view on that? Thank you for the question. This is something that I've had already had a relative engagement on with stakeholders. I had a meeting specifically on this earlier in the autumn, which I think was referred to by one of the witnesses given evidence. The committee will be aware of this. This is something that we can address through existing powers under secondary legislation. I certainly understand the policy intent behind the argument. I'm conscious as well of some of the comments that have been made by witnesses towards the committee. While I'm sympathetic towards what it would be seeking to do, I think it's incumbent upon me for all considering this to ensure that we take our out-need view to make sure that there's no unintended consequences. The commitment that I've given to Engage and to the Galsus stakeholders is that I will want to see what view the committee form is in some context that COSLA has written to the committee in this matter. I was conscious as a matter that might be raised by the committee. I'm conscious in other areas of suggested changes that COSLA has written to the committee is to correct that particular point. I would want to have the opportunity to reflect upon what position the committee arrives at in this matter and to have further engagement with those who maybe would have an interest in this particular area. As I say, I'm sympathetic to what it is seeking to do, but I think it's important just to tear a broader range of voices, but I will be having a further engagement with stakeholders in the new year on this matter if I had an opportunity to consider what the committee has to say and have further engagement. Okay, thank you for that. The other issues I was wanting to raise was discharge of trustees, so currently there is an automatic discharge and where a debtor is either uncontactable or uncooperative or just cannot be found, this can result in a trustee being in post indefinitely. It can also sometimes, if it's an insolvisy practitioner, mean there's on-going charges which eats into the money available for creditors. Both ICAS and Insolvisy Practitioners Association have called for a solution to this. Again, what's the Government's view on automatic discharge of trustees? I want to have a specific point. There's been some consideration. I'll ask Richard to provide some of the detail. No, I think we accept there's an issue. Trustees have accepted these appointments themselves, so they've gone into this where their eyes open, but I don't think it's sensible to continue administering a bankruptcy through annual reviews and through annually paying my office a fee forever when there is no chance of resolving it. So we accept there's an issue when we're working with them to see if we can come up with a solution. That might be included in this legislation and might be included elsewhere. Okay. The other issue that came up in relation to this was extending the timescales for serving a bankruptcy petition. Again, where it's difficult to find the debtor or the person might live quite far away from the central belt where a lot of the sheriff officers are based. Is that something that the Government is looking at? We're going to have further engagement and discussion on that to see if we can find a solution. My last question is relating to interest. I understand that there was a recent court case which suggested that where a bank book say is recalled, it's left alone a bit of state of flux at the moment because it may or may not be payable. Again, the Law Society and ICAS have asked for this to be reviewed and have suggested a six-month period where after that you can charge interest. Again, what's the Government's view on that? I'll ask Richard to come in with the detail on that. I might actually ask James to help me on this one. Recalls designed to be for when bankruptcy has been awarded in error and you want to put the individual back in the position as if they hadn't been made bankrupt. We think the law is pretty clear actually that one of the conditions for recall is you can pay your debts in full, does that include interest? We're pretty sure that the law says no, it doesn't, and we were involved in that case. HMRC thought they were due interest, we thought they weren't, and the court decided it on our side. Now that's fine if the recall has happened six months after the bankruptcy, but what happens if it happens five years after the bankruptcy? Was recall designed to deal with that sort of situation? Probably not, but there's actually nothing to stop the individual applying for recall as soon as they can repay their debts in full. Probably this is one of those areas where a solution is very complicated, there aren't many recall cases every year, but I think we accept there's an issue there, I'm just not entirely sure I would know what to do about it. No, there's not much more that I can add based on what's been said already, yes, certainly the case with HMRC against accounting and bankruptcy, and that certainly was, the position in that case was that interest wouldn't be paid if recall or sequestration happened, so yeah, this is subject to the final policy position I suppose on this. Okay, thank you. I have a couple of questions on diligence reform. We did receive some representation about arrestment reforms, particularly concern, I suppose, from the banking sector, because the bill would mean that banks and employers would have to tell creditors why attempts to arrest the debtors assets have been unsuccessful, which changes the current situation where they don't have to inform. What they're concerned about extra costs and whether the Government would consider that arrested should only be required to respond if they're asked why the arrestment has failed, rather than it being an automatic, they always have to provide a reason why it's failed. So I don't know what discussions the Government's had around this or what reflections they've got on it. Yeah, we have had engagement specifically with representatives within the sector, and we do recognise that it would be just placing an additional requirement, but it's one that we think we can work to ensure is suitably streamlined and efficient and straightforward, and that is such the benefits that are intended by the policy can be realised, but in terms of engagement we've had, Richard, if you want to. Part of the problem with diligence is that we have so little information about what's effective and the impact it has on the person subject to diligence. I can't tell you how many diligence succeed. We don't know. I can't tell you how much money has got back through diligence. I can't tell you which diligence is necessarily the most cost-effective to go because we just don't have the data. So this is an attempt to start building an evidence base so we can start to assess whether the system is efficient or effective or not. Now, I'm assuming when a bank has an arrestment served on it, they already have to check their system to see if they actually have an account for that particular individual and the level in it. So they already have to do that work. The extra burden we're putting on them is then not only reporting that up their own chain but reporting to us. We should be able to design a way with sheriff officers in which that can be done very cheaply and quickly, and we will do our utmost to do that. But yes, it is imposing an additional burden on them. I'm hoping that they'll lead to a better diligence system that will be worth the costs. Okay, thank you. The other issues around calls to reform diligence against earnings that the Minister has recognised we are in a cost-of-living crisis, and the Government did previously increase the threshold for the amount of, could be increased threshold for bank accounts, increased it up to £1,000. I know that there are calls for a similar move to be introduced for earnings, so there'd be a £1,000 threshold. Now, I suspect the Minister is going to tell me about stage 3. However, the evidence we have heard is that we are, there are people who will have to wait too long for stage 3, there are people who are in desperate situations, and the amount that is able to be arrested from earnings is causing additional pressures on them. We're talking about people in very difficult situations. It's not well to households, we're talking about here. So it's whether we can increase the amount protected to £1,000 and also there's been calls to have some flexibility. So at the moment, I can't remember them, I think it's about £656, I didn't write it down, but the amount and whether they could be for the credit are some flexibility in how much rather than it being a set amount that they could have. And I think there are calls that this should be done and this piece of legislation was an opportunity here to do something about that, rather than wait until stage 3 has concluded. And it would seem that, as we've increased the threshold for bank accounts, that would mean we'd bring it in line with bank accounts and with the arguments that were made at the time for that threshold to increase, do apply to the earnings and the harassment as well. Yeah, I'm conscious of the calls and, as you highlighted, we have already made changes around the earnings and harassment for this year. I'm content to give further consideration to this engagement. I see something that we can make changes to through existing powers and secondary legislation. I'm conscious that there have been various proposals that have been brought forward, including in terms of how unrecognisable the underlying rationale would be for a particular amount and how it could be related more widely to other factors. So I'm happy to give that consideration. I'm correct in saying that this was a particular point that Coryslaw had flagged up in correspondence to the committee. So I would want to ensure that, in terms of taking forward consideration of this, I have the broadest range of voices and opinions on the matter. But in terms of what the policy intent of it would be, I don't think that there's anyone who would be unsympathetic towards that, and including around looking to explore what practically could be done to increase flexibilities around invariance. But I would say that I'd want to be sure that we're still having a system that is efficient, that is straightforward to administer and doesn't lead to any unintended consequences, particularly recognising it from the perspective of local authorities as one of the primary users of that particular diligence, that we take their opinions and views into account as well. Do you want to add, Richard? I've just said that there's a third party involved here. It's not just the creditor and the individual, it's also the employer. Our habit has been to raise these thresholds once every three years and do it from 1 April, with at least four months' notice, because that allows the software providers who provide employers payroll software to make the adjustments in that. So every time we adjust this, it does impose a cost, both on those software providers and through them on employers. And if you were changing these things too rapidly too often, that burden would become significant. Yeah, but it wouldn't be too often because it would be a move from the current up to 1,000 to make it the same as the bank and the investment. So I don't think it would be... I don't think it's something that would happen frequently. It would bring it in line with... Well, you were talking not only about raising the threshold, but also about the possibility to vary the amounts for agreement between the creditor and the individual. Well, my understanding is that these are probably... You could do both, through somebody who would welcome them both, but I think one or the other would be helpful and would ease a situation for people. Just one final question before I bring in Evelyn Tweed. Because the minister talks about unintended consequences, has there been any consideration given to when we increased the bank account level to 1,000 pounds? Has that had any adverse consequences or presented any challenges? And that appreciate is different, earnings and bank account is different, but that threshold raised from around 650 pound up to 1,000 pounds. Will that keep into effect relatively recently? Yeah, it was... Yeah. I mean, one of the compelling arguments I thought demonstrating the sense of doing that was that universal credit payments were getting larger, and you want to protect universal credit payment when it arrives in the bank account. As you all know, previously it was widely assumed that as soon as money arrives in a bank account, it loses its special privileges, it just becomes money regardless of the source, so it became arrestable. And that could not have been Parliament's intention that you pay somebody a universal credit and then pay off to the creditor. Now, that's been a recent court case where actually the sheriff took the view, and again, I'm going to get James to bail me out with a reference on this, that said no, you couldn't arrest income when the client's sole income was benefit, so the money in the bank account must have been benefits and you couldn't take that. But that's not... Up until that judgment, everybody thought the law was the other way around. I think with regards to... I'm happy to have that for their conversations. I'll be keen to say to you to get a sense of what view the committee takes in light of the view that others might express in this matter as well. But it's just having to take account of the impact, for example, varying provision would have on employers. With regards to an operating, again, there's a question of whether that's an exceptional one-off event or the committee takes a view that there should be a more un-underlying rationale for a more predictable rhythm of uplift to reflect other circumstances, be that prevailing economic conditions. But it's just to recognise it is well intentioned that it should be. It does create administrative compliance for others as well and we'd want to take that into account. The committee did hear quite compelling evidence around the impact it has on people. We understand it was, I think, a survey done by one of our witnesses. We're talking... You did mention calls that it is largely council tax debt and its family is on pretty low incomes and to put a bit ease into that system would be helpful, probably more than what the mental health moratorium is suggesting for them at this point in time. I recognise the issue if you're having arrests if it's taken place which are inhibiting people from paying their council tax. That creates an additional problem and I know that's an issue that witnesses have raised. So it's something happy to have further engagement on and just recognise that we have the means to address this through existing powers and secondary legislation. Okay, thank you. Evelyn Tweet. Thanks, convener. Good morning, minister. Good morning, panel. There are concerns that the debt advice and information package is too technical, it's too long and it doesn't really get key information across to people who are in debt. Is the Scottish Government doing anything to review the contents of the leaflet and should it be available in an interactive leaflet format? Well, in true lupiter fashion, I already have one, I have some here to go and share with the committee and can confirm that, yes, we are reviewing the contents of the pack and they'll be engaging with representatives of the advice sector as well. I think, again, picking up on Mr Stewart's point, we'll look for further engagement with those who have the direct experience of using the pack. To help inform that process of consideration review. We do have copies that are there for any member of the committee who's interested and wants to consider it in more detail. Thanks, minister. I think that that's good news. Also, minister, you will be bringing forward various regulations as part of the wider reform process in relation to diligence. I understand that some of these might have a bigger effect than anything that's in the bill. Given the likely impact will you commit to further public consultation on proposals relating to information disclosure orders and inhibition and summary warrant before doing so? Yes, I'm certainly committed to further engagement. If there's a view at the committee that warrants a level engagement at consultation level, I'm happy to consider that as well. I recognise some of the issues that have been raised and committed to further engagement. No, I would just say there is probably quite a strong link between information disclosure orders and bank arrestments because the costs that banks are rightly, I think, raising as a concern are partly because, as a sheriff officer, you have no idea where the client has their bank account. I think that the practice is to serve an arrestment on the full main clearing banks. If you can use information disclosure orders so you know where the client has a bank account, one of that reduces the number of bank arrestments by 75 per cent to start with. Thank you. I'd like to thank the minister for joining us today and his other witnesses. That brings us to the end of the evidence session, and I briefly suspend the meeting for a change of witnesses. Our next item of business this morning is the fourth evidence session of our Just Transition for the North East and Moray Inquiry. This morning we'll hear from three co-ordinators from the University of Aberdeen's Just Transition Lab on the findings of its multi-disciplinary investigation, Just Transition for workers in communities in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, indicators and scenarios. I welcome Dr Darya Shapovalova, senior lecturer in energy law, Dr John Bone, senior lecturer in social sciences and Professor Travis Potts, dean for environmental sustainability and research in geography. If members and witnesses can keep their answers and questions as concise as possible, that would be helpful. I invite Dr Shapovalova to briefly introduce the research conducted by the Just Transition Lab. Thank you very much for the invitation. I'm here to represent the Just Transition Lab, which is the interdisciplinary group of researchers at the University of Aberdeen. We are working on advancing impact-driven research on Just Transition. We have co-ordinators based in law, economics, social sciences, geography, geosciences and engineering. We also have associate researchers across other departments, and we have submitted to the inquiry an excerpt of our report on measuring Just Transition in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. We've also been involved in projects on Just Transition in energy cities, the role of the third sector in Just Transition, visioning of Just Transition in the region and climate assemblies in the northeast as well. This report in particular develops a comprehensive approach to measuring Just Transition in the region. We have looked into international practice on Just Transition and evaluation. We found that while Just Transition is a very well-established concept and policymaking and in academia, there is a notable lack of approaches and data on measuring Just Transition in a place-based approach and measuring the progress that is made towards it. That is despite repeated calls by stakeholders, by the Scottish Parliament, by the Just Transition Commission to have some sort of a measuring and evaluation framework. We have done a rapid evidence assessment and archival research. We have co-developed with stakeholders through knowledge exchange events. A set of proposed indicators for a Just Transition in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, we have done it holistically across four themes, which include the employment and skills, equality and well-being, democratic participation, and community empowerment, revitalisation and at zero. We use data from the government statistics, from the local authorities, from public bodies, from third sector organisations, but also provide further information and background to identify gaps of data, but also to just provide a more comprehensive description of what is happening in the region and to provide a picture of the impact that Transition is having in the region. We found that communities and stakeholders here in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are very enthusiastic. They want to engage, but they don't often feel like there is a connection between the very high-level principles for Just Transition identified and the issues that are important to them, that we need to build and strengthen the way we provide for community and public participation in decision making. We need to use this transition to build on our strength, but also to use a set of priority to address the existing inequalities and to have some targeted measures to support the underrepresented groups. We need to listen to workers and deliver on their demands, including the offshore training passport, and we need to do a better job in developing and maintaining the social consensus around transition. There is quite a lot of data in the report, so we are here today in the hope to elaborate on some of our findings and engage with the committee. Thank you for that very helpful opening. It does respond to some of the issues that we have been discussing over the past few weeks. We have heard from various panels that there is a lack of a shared understanding. There is a high-level understanding of what a Just Transition is, but when you ask people what it means for your sector or for your community, you get different answers. Is that problematic? Is that part of why this piece of work has been undertaken? Is the intention to try to establish an agreed set of measures and understanding? That was certainly our intention, and it is important to have the high-level principles and outcomes, and this is where the principles defined in the Climate Change Act in Scotland and the Just Transition outcome framework is very helpful in having a very shared general base understanding, but then in order to make it relatable to stakeholders and communities, we do need to translate it into a more sectoral approach. We definitely found that people care, and there are a lot of issues that are included within the aspect of Just Transition. We initially hoped that the report would be 30 pages, and it is over 100 pages, because there are a lot of various sets of measures and indicators that we have taken. For example, transport is something that would not initially include, but after engaging with stakeholders, we have included the whole section on sustainable and active travel. I would perhaps also refer to my colleagues here to help answer to this question, maybe Professor Bodds. Yeah, good morning everybody, nice to thanks for the opportunity to speak today. So just in terms of that difference between high-level and community work, so we've reflected this in the report but also builds upon some previous work we've been doing in the Just Transitions Lab. We ran an 18-month project with specifically working with communities and civil society groups, a third sector groups in the north-east to really unpack what does a Just Transition mean for you. While the high-level principles were recognised and people have their own interpretations of what these are, we really found that it's a desire for a good process, for an open process. From that work, which we've referenced in the report, we've identified the five key areas that communities and civil society wanted action on, and these are more practical things. These are things that are place-based and locally relevant, so the five areas, I won't go into them, they're in the report, but revitalising community, community infrastructure, community wealth, jobs and skills, moving from oil and gas into a much more diverse economy, and we can cover that a bit more. Fuel poverty, which is in the north-east, is a really significant problem across Scotland, but particularly concentrated in the north-east. Greenspace is a huge issue, particularly in Aberdeen, with a conflict around St. Fittig's Park and the Energy Transition Zone, and it's a good example of problems of building consensus, the social licence around a transition, and participation and empowerment is the fifth one, themes of it, which are all covered in the report. That work then really worked with communities to unpack what does it mean for people on the ground in the north-east and how do we action it? Thank you. We have other members who will ask more questions in that area, but I'll move over to Colin Smith to be followed by Evelyn Tweed. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. As you point out in your evidence, the committee, like yourself and many others, have recognised that lack of a clear definition of what we mean by a just transition, but given this and also your work in seeking to define and measure a just transition, do you think that there's enough clarity and certainty at the moment when it comes to what UK and Scottish Government policies seek to achieve in relation to that transition to net zero? If not, where are the gaps given the work that you've done and how we measure a just transition? I can make a start on that. I'll hand it over to colleagues. I think in terms of the principles, yes, there is. There is clarity at a high level, but where we lack clarity, both in terms of process, in terms of investment, in terms of indicators, is really dialing down to a place-based approach. What works in, for example, in the north-east or what happens, for example, in the recent issues around the Grangemouth cluster, I think that's where we lack clarity. We lack fairly consistent data. We lack uncertainty about the processes and mechanisms that are needed to advance this. Our work has started to fill in those gaps. I think we've probably spent too much time focusing on definitions in academia, certainly. Definitions is important. We have two decades of definitions of what just transition means, but what we need actually is clarity in the planning process, clarity in directions to local authorities, clarity in terms of investment, clarity in terms of building civil society and democratic processes. In many areas, we need to improve those aspects. Actually, Darae, if we organise a meeting, if the questions are initially directed to you and then you can invite in the other witnesses, if you wish, that would make it easier. Thank you. We certainly recognise that in order to do just transition planning, there's quite a lot of challenges associated with making sure that the process is inclusive, that there is co-development and that takes time. However, there's also a more urgent need to speed up those processes because it's been years of discussing and planning and we have the energy strategy that is delayed. We had the draft heating strategy that came out yesterday. The more regional strategies for the north-east and for Grangemouth are in development. They're certainly scoped to work more with the local third sector organisations as stakeholders to not delay those processes any longer. Communities and stakeholders need to have some more clarity on how those high-level principles translate into issues that are relevant to them directly. You listed just some of the many strategies that we have. There are lots of strategies out there. I'm not going to ask whether there are any strategies missing, but it is the missing gap that there are lots of strategies, but it's the physical delivery to meet that definition. It's maybe not the other processes, if you like, the implementation. Is that what you're suggesting? It has to be all at the same time, unfortunately. It has to be the sectoral strategies, but also a clear measurement and evaluation framework for each of those strategies. OK. DNR, Tyfer, is there anything? Yes. Just a very quick example. One, the just transition, as we see from the principles, really embeds democratic engagement. Consensus building, social licence, that sort of thing. A good example that a colleague here has brought up a lack of process. We looked Ie ddim yn yw'r ysgol o'r bydd yng Nghymru sydd ymddangos o'r cymrydus o'r cymrydus o'r Cymrydus sifolon o'r Cymrydus ymddangos. Roedd yma yn ddegwyd. Mae ymddangos o'r pryd yma yn ffyrdd o'r cymrydus o'r cymrydus o'r Cymrydus ymddangos o'r cymrydus ymddangos. Mae'n oed wrth i'r bobl yn ysgol i'r cymrydus o'r cymrydus o'r cymrydus. That's great. This is a really welcome process. However, what we lack is a mechanism or a means of taking those outputs of these community assemblies into policy. There is no formal link between what happens in the community climate assembly and what happens in local government, whether that's Aberdeen City, Aberdeen Shire or Moray or the areas we're focusing in. So that's one area that the community assembly is a great. There's goodwill. There's ideas. There's some levels of dissatisfaction as well because they're seen potentially as talking shops. So how do you actually take those outputs and use them as material evidence in planning, for example? There is no formal link between the two and that's something we really want to strongly push is that you need to actually formalize the civil society element there and how it feeds into improving policy, improving local planning outcomes. There is a big disconnect, for example, safe between what the outcomes of the Tory people's assembly has been in Tory and the master planning process for the energy transition zone. There's a huge gulf there. So we need to bring these two processes together much more strongly and that may take regulation to do so. Is that because of just processes that are not in place or is it because what local government may be seeking to achieve what their aims, if you like, may be very different from the communities because of that lack of a definition or is it just a process issue? I think it's a process issue. Will be my view. I would agree with that because currently the ways in which the public can participate in decision making are very formalistic. They require community members with a lot of free time with expertise so potentially communities with retired professionals are very well placed for that. Urban communities in a city centre with high levels of social and economic deprivation are not empowered by the current regulation on public engagement in decision making local and national to participate in these planning and decision making processes. But also they do not see, even when they do participate, their opinion reflected in the final decisions made. Your research proposes a series of indicators to measure whether a just transition has been delivered. Dari, I think you had mentioned this in your opening statement. Can you tell us a bit more about how you formulated these and what the evidence was based on? Do you think that the Scottish Government could follow a similar process? Thank you. We have used the combination of archival and evidence assessment, overseen by a diverse steering group and stakeholder engagement to co-develop the themes and the indicators. We have fed in the results of a project that involves climate assemblies being held and the previous project on the visioning for just transition. The main principles of our approach was to have as wider of a stakeholder engagement as we could have had under the circumstances. We have made sure that we considered the impacts on the region from hosting the energy industry for decades before now and what has happened and how the communities perceive this transition. But also what are the most important issues to the communities here in place? We think that this model is a workable model and can be applied in the planning process in the northeast and elsewhere. It does require nuanced place-based approaches, but as a methodological model we do feel like it is appropriate for just transition planning and it does take some time, but we have managed to do it in about 18 months. I think my colleague John Bourne would like to come in to contribute on this. I think one of the things that comes across very strongly from this is that just transition has meant different things to different people. There has been a sense in which there has been an emphasis on industry transition and skills and so on. Our approach takes very seriously the fact that this is multi-dimensional. What we are looking at is—this is where my area within the Just Translations Lab is—looking at widespread social change. What you are looking at is a fundamental social and economic change and what has to be considered is whether policies implemented in one area could have unintended negative consequences in another area and so on. What we are trying to do is to build a comprehensive picture. That is partly why we have been getting stakeholders from so many diverse groups together to get a very rounded picture of what a just transition would look like and various things that might be missing presently from understandings of how we need to make that transition. We also have to understand the context in which it is taking place because it is not taking place in a vacuum. We have to consider lots and lots of different factors and knock-on effects on each other in producing that just transition. I have a follow-on from Evelyn Tweed's question, because she asked about the Scottish Government following a similar process. As you mentioned, we are still waiting on a just transition plan for the north-east from the Scottish Government, and we are also waiting on one on Grangemouth. The committee did undertake an inquiry into Grangemouth, and given recent announcements from Grangemouth, it is more pressing than ever that we have the plan. I wonder about the status of your work and whether you have had discussions with the Scottish Government, because you said that it is 18 months' worth of work. One of the frustrations that we have had in the inquiry so far is whether the indicators and how do we know if our just transitions happened or not. Have you had discussions with the Government about the work that is being produced here? As the project was ongoing, we have delivered a lunchtime seminar at the Scottish Government. Last week, we had the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition visit the university, and we had had a long discussion with her about this project and just transition. I think it's important to know that the final draft of the report was just finalised last week as well. We are planning to meet with the Government officials to discuss the methodologies and outcomes of the work in the very near future as well. Thank you, Diane. That's helpful, Maggie Chapman, to be followed by Colin Beattie. Thanks very much, Ken. Good morning to the panel. Thank you for joining us this morning. Before I kick off with my questions, I want to remind colleagues of my membership of the board of Nescan, the North East Scotland Climate Action Network. I'm interested in exploring some of the tensions between the different areas and themes of the indicators. Daria, if I can come to you first, could you just give us a little bit of the rationale for the distinctions you've made between the community empowerment and revitalisation section and the democratic participation? I think that those are often squished together and seen as one of the same things. How did you determine that they should be separated? Why does that matter and what are the consequences of that separation? Thank you so much for the question. I think that an important note first is that we do not think that these themes operate independently of each other, so the jobs and skills section will have an knock-on effect on all of them, democratic participation, and we know that in the opening section of the sections is interestingly linked to community empowerment and revitalisation as well, but community empowerment is about more than just democratic participation. It is about the shift of power in the communities that can be done through democratic participation, but also through community wealth building, through equipping communities with ownership of more assets, ownership of renewable energy projects, through revitalised economies locally and through active climate adaptation, for example. So I think it's just a matter of scope, but it is in no way the case where you can deliver on democratic participation but not community empowerment and have a just transition. You cannot pick and choose indicators here. You have to work on all of them. Okay, thanks. That's helpful. When you talk about community empowerment shifting where power lies and you used a couple of examples around different ownership models, that kind of thing, are there examples that you've come across in your research where community empowerment is happening at the moment in the just transition space? I think a very good example from Aberdeen is the Don's Head Community Hydro Scheme that is run by Aberdeen Community Energy, which is a community benefit society that is set up. It's near Seton Park in Aberdeen, which is not the bluest region on the SIMD map at all, but it has been operating quite successfully. It's in its fifth full year in operation and it provides empowerment to the community through its action. But it's a very rare example. Renewable energy ownership in urban areas is something that a lot of improvement is needed on. I think my colleague Tavis has some examples to hand as well. Yeah, thanks Maggie. Thanks Daria. So the first point I want to make on how we got those categories is that this was a stakeholder driven co-develop process through the entire research. So at every stage of the research we had a steering committee, which was a really diverse group of stakeholders from the community and from energy and from different sectors, and they helped us guide the research and steer the research what they'd like to see. This is essentially an arbitrary distinction between community empowerment and democratic representation and democratic processes. One leads to the other. I think we have a long way to go in the northeast of Scotland about improving participation. And that's why we've made some, but we are advancing and I think seeing some of the impacts of the Just Transition Fund supporting some work. There's some problems with that as well about how the funding is, how we engage with the funding and the capacity of communities to engage in this. But we're making strides, but there's still a long way to go. I think we need to place capacity building and representation and community revitalisation on the same level, commenturate with say industry net zero skills. They're both fundamentally important, but there's huge scope for social innovation here and community wealth building in this space. But there are huge issues with reaching marginalised and underrepresented communities who are not part of the narrative and not part of the process of discussing what a Just Transition means for the northeast. There's a long way to go on that front. We need to really invest in those skills as well as the industry skills. They're both fundamentally important for getting a transition in the northeast, we believe. I suppose that that comes back to, you know, I think that the focus on Just Transition tends to be around energy and tends to be around decarbonisation, but there are so many other things happening, as you say, it is that whole social and economic picture that we're wanting to look at. Yes. Thinking about the democratic participation bit then, and I hear what you said earlier in response to Colin's questions around community assemblies and the process for getting the outcomes or desires from those into policy, into implementation. Are there other things we need to be thinking about around ensuring that people are actually, people's views, whether they are community members or workers, whether their views are actually translated into action, into the transformations that we need to see? What are the things that we as policymakers need to do to enhance trust in the process? So we have captured data on the lack of trust and declining trust, particularly in Aberdeen, about engagement in this process. So it's been really quite an effective process to sort of track that and watch that. I would formalise what community processes deliver and then how they're taking up. So I'd like outputs of community assemblies or any other assemblies to be material evidence in the planning process, for example. They're not at the moment and we've conducted in parallel to this some primary research, which I'm happy to forward on to the committee once I'm finished writing it up, of course, about looking at, we've done the UK's first, if not the world's first survey in the northeast of how decision makers and community councils and councillors actually respond to interview climate assemblies and community assemblies. And while there was some positivity around what that could mean, there was also a lot of uncertainty about what do you do with them and how you construct them and how you link the outputs of one to formal and the other. That's not to say that the outputs of assemblies are just the only value is material evidence into policy. They're not. There's a lot of work around strengthening civil society discourse and capacity, which is really important on its own. But I think what we believe is that there needs to be a formal link into policy there. Also things like a constituted regional assembly in the northeast, for example, that's representative of all the voices in the northeast, not just the energy sector, but all the voices in the northeast who have a role to play in transition is a fundamental part of that. I think John had his hand up as well, if I saw that. Yep, John, happy to bring you in too. That's okay. Yeah, I mean, there is work that's happening that's an adjunct to this to try and get more community groups and sub-sectoring groups involved in the transition. I've been working with Aberdeen City Council on inequality and poverty issues and also working on community planning Aberdeen in terms of reforging the local improvement plan. And net zero is part of that process and that's bringing in community groups and getting their opinions and so on. So there's a lot happening in different silos. There's also the health determinants research collaborative in Aberdeen. I'm also part of that. And so there are there are different groups bringing in different aspects of this and there needs to be something to bring that together. Yeah, because as I said earlier, what we're looking at is a societal change here. It's not just an industry or economic change. It's a societal change and all of these different elements of it have to be taken account of. And together with the views of those who are underrepresented and who need to be brought along with the process because that's when trust will be, trust will be forged by having community groups and individuals believe that their issues are represented. The things that are important to them are part of that just transition process. Thanks, John. One final question probably for you, if I may, around the work on housing poverty and well-being. And I think it's really interesting and important the links being made and it builds on what you've just said there around equality and well-being and that connection between our environmental situation and our individual and community well-being. Could you just tease that out a little bit more and say why those are grouped the way they are in the indicators and measures? OK. Well, firstly, societal change of any type is problematic for well-being. We have a problematic relationship with change. So the change has to be managed and people need to have information as to how that's being managed. And they also need to have a positive vision going forward, but they also need to be supported. The problems we have at the moment is that we have an insecure society who are confronting these changes. And what we have to do is provide people with a greater sense of security and a greater sense of hope that the changes that they're about to go through will make their lives better. And there are aspects of those changes. I mean, for example, we've included housing. Housing, I notice in the Scottish Government's vision of just transition, housing isn't featured very strongly. If we're going to move towards a fairer economy and a fairer society, housing has got to be a critical issue. Housing has been until recently unrecognised as a source of deep-in security, which has impacts on our well-being. I promised I wouldn't go into my biosocial theory today and I won't, but all I will say is that recent, I see you laughing as well, but housing has actually been shown. People living in insecure housing and poor quality housing actually age quicker and are more subject to poor health and poor immune systems than those who live in secure and affordable housing. So housing's got to be part of this mix. Housing's also important for the vitality of the economy. If we go through a just transition in Scotland and we want it, we want a vibrant and fairer Scotland and fairer economy. The high cost of housing, particularly in the private rented sector, is taking away a lot of people's disposable income. It's also contributing a great deal to poverty as people have to make up the shortfall and rents and so on from benefits. Housing is a major problem, so that's got to be included as part of the just transition. As I said earlier, that's got to be multi-dimensional. We've got to look at what's happening in lots of spheres of society and economy and look at how people can be supported through a very managed and multi-dimensional process to produce the kind of outcome that you're looking for. When we're looking at the Scottish Government's vision for a just transition, I would like to live in that society by 2045. There's a great deal of work, but it needs to take place in lots of different areas, and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to look at this and look at areas that have been neglected within the process and look at how they connect to other areas and how we can manage to produce something moving forward that doesn't miss important aspects of the process. Thanks, John. That's really helpful. I think we've talked around this committee quite a lot about jobs, but bringing in housing is one of the other anchors of wellbeing and of that positive vision that we want to get to. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you. Colin Beattie to be followed by Kevin Stewart. I'd like to turn to the opening statement that Daria made. It was interesting you referred to what was happening in other countries internationally in terms of just transition. As has been discussed today around this table, there is certainly uncertain areas as to what just transition means to particular sectors. Have they done better overseas in defining just transition? Do they recognise just transition? What about measurements? Has they got in place anything that is better than we are doing in lessons that we can learn? I think it is important to recognise that Scotland is seen internationally as a leader in just transition planning and policy, which is a very reassuring thing. There are quite a lot of developments internationally. There are not always cold just transition, but they are around just transition. There is a sustainable jobs act currently with the Canadian Parliament that is more focusing on the jobs aspect of it, but it has the same model in that the independent commission will be instituted by that act to help with the planning process. There are some broses internationally that are more focused on coal transitions, for example. The EU just transition mechanism and fund has a specific platform for coal regions in transition. There is a regional commission in the US Appalachian regions also focusing on coal specifically. We have not seen any specific methodologies for multifaceted just transition measurements. There is a report from the World Benchmarking Alliance on just transition indicators, but these are more directed at the industry. They are looking at the publicly available data on various companies, on how they comply with human rights obligations, how they represent workers representation and award them a specific score, but it is the industry focused one. There are of course much more high level dashboards such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that are holistic, but they are very high level and they are at the national level rather than looking at specific places. So just transition is framed in various ways depending on on who you ask. There are some NGOs that are framing it more widely around the lifting up the communities and empowerment and democratic participation. And there are others that are much more jobs focused. It's important here to remember that the just transition as a term did originate from the trade union movement in the United States, so it is understandable why sometimes it is much more focused on the jobs aspect. Did we do any comparisons with European countries? We have not under the scope of this research done in depth comparison. We have looked at practices including in Europe but focusing more on the EU just transition movement, but we did not see any specific methodologies or good practices on measurement of just transition. So I guess what you're saying is there are no lessons for us to learn from other countries at this time? As conceived by our report, we have not found what we have been looking for in terms of measurement of just transition. That is not to say that there aren't any. From what you're saying, it sounds a bit of a worry that an awful lot of countries don't seem to have a coordinated effort in this in terms of heading to net zero and so forth. It is a worry, absolutely. It is much easier to measure and present data on greenhouse gas emission limitation. So this is where the focus is because we have the data that goes the way back and it could be presented to the local level and at the national level and it's easy to track it and it's either easy to assess it. But there is definitely a sentiment in academia and in commentary that it is much more difficult to track more social issues and that has not been done comprehensively. And there are two issues here. First, it is difficult to track. There is not enough data. So for democratic participation, we have got some Scottish household survey data and some Aberdeen voice survey data. But we have also found that there is a lot of data gaps in there. But another issue is that just transition will mean different things in different regions. So in some, it's more based on transition out of coal. In some, it's transition out of oil and gas. In some areas, there is no energy associated. It is just transition to a low-carbon society. So it is also acceptable that we are not always going to have lessons to learn from other regions that have different challenges than us. I mean, it's clear in Scotland, looking at the north-east and elsewhere, that there are so many different sectors and that just transition will be slightly different depending on which focus you're on at that particular time. What concerns me is, I mean, I don't like to think that it's Scotland sort of working in isolation here and that there must be some good practices that we can take on board and share with other countries, both what we're doing and what they're doing, but there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to do that. There is definitely scope for more cooperation on just transition. Just transition was for the first time included under the Paris Agreement agenda. I imagine there will be quite a lot of discussions on just transition in COP 28 that has just started today. So the dialogues are definitely there, but there are also a lot of developments in other countries that do not have the just transition banner under it, but are so important for just transition. So in Norway, there might not be a just transition commission like in Scotland, but there is a sovereign wealth fund that has been preparing the society for that transition for many, many decades. I'm going to pass to my colleague, Tavis, at the stage you see his hand is up. Haven't got, I'll be brief, but the work that this focus work particularly was looking on at the Northeast of Scotland. Oh, we did explore what was happening around. We really were honing down on the issues for the Northeast, but some parallel work that we've been doing in the centre, we've found that there are very similar characteristics and processes around what we're calling energy cities and regions. So between, say, Aberdeen will have more in common what's happening potentially in Stavanger or in Houston or Perth Australia or Newcastle Australia, where I'm from, then say between Aberdeen and Edinburgh or Aberdeen and London, because it's about how the energy economy is a dominant player in providing employment, how and communities are engaged about the perspectives on the shifts and the challenges around jobs and skills, for example. So where I'm from in from Sydney and Newcastle and New South Wales, they've just established a jobs transition strategy of the New South Wales government. They have a net zero strategy in there, but they're actually referring to what's happened in Scotland actually around the commission, but there are similar issues with coal workers, for example. And I know this because my old man is an ex coal industry, and he's just attended the closure of his major power station. After 45 years of operation, it's been converted to a battery storage network hub now, the coal fuel power plant. So there are similar parallels about what's happening both in terms of the economic policy and the industrial strategy and the justice transition processes. But we think there's actually more in common between energy cities and energy regions if we're talking about North East context, and we're collecting those stories and working with other players around the world. Thank you. I'm going to have Kevin Stewart to be followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thank you, convener, and good morning to all of you. I want to look at a number of issues around about data and measurements, but also outcomes and experience. I've never come across an academic yet that has said that we don't need any more data. And I recognise that there are data gaps that you may want to highlight where you think some of those gaps are. But I also wanted to tease out some of the things that you've already said, where I think there could be difficulties in terms of data and where sometimes we get ourselves in knots about things. So you can tell me about the gaps that you think exist, but let me give you an example of where we sometimes get ourselves in knots. You say that we need to create a standardised classification of green jobs, since current industry and occupational classifications are not detailed enough. But let me give you an example about a conversation that I had the other week, and it was around about software engineers and how we need to boost the educational prospects of folk who want to enter into software engineering, because we're not producing enough of them. But how would you classify whether a software engineer is working in a green capacity, a green job or not? So gaps and, you know, these foibles that sometimes data gathering can bring us to. Thank you very much for your question. So we have been really fortunate in that we have encountered a lot of very helpful people along the way in collecting this data. When we first started working on it, we saw that there is very little in the public domain apart from the national statistics. So we have got a lot of data from the local authorities, Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council, who are very helpful. We got data from Nestrans, from the Energy Savings Trust, from the local sector organisations such as NASCAN and CFINE and more. So we have taken all this data and tried to present it in this comprehensive way, but it took quite a lot of digging and we feel like it shouldn't have. We are aware that there is a climate intelligence service that is currently being developed by the government to aid local authorities in data collection and presentation. And we think that it's a very positive development and perhaps it could include just transition within the data collection and presentation as well. And there also should be more data sharing between the industry and the government and the data should be made more public and recognise the challenges that exist with classification of jobs. And it is something that we do highlight in the report. I wish we had Professor Geithra Bender here with us, who is an economics, and he would probably be able to give you a much more eloquent answer. But that comment stemmed mostly from the fact that it's quite difficult to tease out from the data that is available on what is the growth rate in the green jobs sector as defined. OK. Where do you think there are other data gaps, please Daria or your other colleagues, if you want to bring them in? Maybe I will start and then I will pass on to my colleagues. So for community empowerment and revitalisation, it would be useful to have more data. So for community ownership, for example, currently the data is only presented, I think, for two years. And just from anecdotal experience, it seems like the data is under-representing what the actual situation is. So there is a need to develop and maintain that data set a bit better community and local ownership. So there's a lot of good work done there by energy savings trust. But some are, we feel like the data is also there a bit under-represented. There are challenges in data on democratic participation and I will pass on to my colleagues to discuss that. Before we pass on, because I think you've hit upon a couple of points there, because you talked of government and industry sharing data. But I think one of the difficulties that we have heard in terms of a lack of communication with communities is that often what we have in terms of data and knowledge are not passed on to communities. Would that be fair to say? So there has to be more of that in that regard? Yes, absolutely. Data needs to be shared in a way that is comprehensive and can be understood as well. So that was our attempt in the report to not just present the data but also present some narrative on what could be the possible explanations for the data, but also where we don't have those explanations. Just presenting charts is perhaps not sufficient in dialogue with communities. So you also talked about community ownership there and this comes to my points around experience and outcomes. In earlier on, in your initial comments, one of your colleagues mentioned Aberdeen community energy, the Donside community hydro, a project that community owned, which took place long before we even thought of a just transition, let's be honest. How do we capture the knowledge, the data that is being captured by that community, by the likes of its leader, Sinclair Lang, Jane Fullerton? How do we capture those experiences to allow other communities to reach the potential and the goals that they have managed to do at Donside Village? There are some good practices and very useful resources available under local energy Scotland and the care scheme on this, but there's definitely more that could be done in experience sharing, particularly in the urban context. Aberdeenshire is doing fantastic on locally owned energy. We are a region with the highest capacity of locally owned energy, but that is mostly farm and estate, locally owned energy rather than community owned energy. In urban settings, including in Aberdeen, community owned energy is dire and needs to be developed and there is definitely space perhaps in a project funded by Just Transition Fund or through other means for more data and experience sharing to build up community capacity to develop projects like that. We feel there is definitely value and it's something that we are planning to do if we do get the resource to develop a data dashboard for a just transition for the region. That could be comprehensible information. I don't know if any of your colleagues want to come in and some of those data gap questions and experience questions. Hi, Kevin. I'm going to say something which you may have never heard. I think we have enough data. What we need is action on a just transition, but I'm a social scientist so probably would say that. We need action. We need capacity building and data will come along as we develop that. If I was to pick one data source that we're missing from the empowerment side of things, it's actually linking the outcome, bringing together all the outcomes of these community deliberations. In all their guises and capturing that and looking at seeing how they're being implemented in whether it's policy or investment decisions or in partnership formation, because there's a huge gap there. We have community assemblies. We have some interest from policymakers. We have nothing linking the two, so I think that's a data gap that we're actively discussing with Nescan at the moment and how we can capture that. So it provides essentially a menu for organisations to engage in this process. In terms of how do we capture the good stories and the capacity from things like the hydro here, just behind my window here. One issue is that often community groups who want to go into the space and build infrastructure by outland, by local buildings, go through the many hoops and loops and hurdles that they have to go through. It is a capacity issue. The community is built on volunteerism, which is really important, but it's a capacity issue. So I would like to see a much stronger linking essentially as a university where we're producing hundreds of graduates in the sustainability space or the engineering space. I would like to see something like, for example, a government sponsored internship scheme where we can match graduates who have employment need to develop their expertise and get experience with, say, partnerships and community groups, not just community groups. This could be local businesses, local SMEs, for example, with this resource we have coming out of the universities at the moment. A lot of our graduates will graduate and leave the region. But actually we should be looking at ways we can keep people here linking those academic skills with the capacity needs of local partnerships, community partnerships, local council partnerships. We don't do that at the moment. And again, I'd like to see these emphasis on not only the critical skills needed for oil and gas workers and moving into things like carbon capture and offshore wind that is fundamental, but also these other really job rich areas that we're not really focusing on the North East. For example, retrofit, for example. It's probably the biggest green employer in the country. It's the one that in the UK statistics has actually grown, where all the others have more or less stayed the same over the past five years. Yet we don't have a formal strategy in Aberdeen to how we actually train up people in this. The other statistic is that the most recent Chamber of Commerce report on the energy transition highlighted something really, really concerning. And that is that 30% of businesses in the region SMEs and large businesses either don't have a net zero strategy and another 30% have a net zero strategy with no targets or no dates. Two thirds of the businesses in the region don't have a formal approach to net zero just transition and yet was supposed to be the energy capital of UK Europe, the world. So how do we grow that capacity for SMEs to develop their capacity, their training, their investment structures around net zero? And I think a part of that is linking the capacity with graduates and students into that space. I certainly think your internship scheme is worth looking at without a doubt. One of the things which has been great about Aberdeen in the North East is when we've attracted folks to come to Aberdeen, particularly students, many, many people stay. I've seen that just the other day in terms of the work that ex-academia is doing in matching folk into green jobs with a number of the accelerators who came to study here and never left. In terms of that internship scheme, that's a good one, but how do we retain and export community knowledge in terms of successful projects to help other projects to become a success? Is there a scheme there to allow folk the freedom to be able to work in that sphere? I think we're starting to put in some of the architecture in place with groups like NASCAN, for example. There's a role for cares in this space as well. I think there's also a role for formalising what I would say is a regional assembly on net zero in the North East so those lessons can be shared. There's huge differences between the city and the shire in this space. We often look slightly north west to places like Huntley, for example, who are an incredible success in attracting inward investment into their community and creating a really strong business case around local energy and local transport and local energy production. So it is really a case of sharing that information, sharing those stories, using some of the existing institutions like CARES, actually identifying where capacity needs to be built, what sort of skills do communities need and how can we provide those skills, and actually having a much more diverse approach to what transition looks like for the North East. Because there is huge job growth and job opportunities in this space. It's not just about community initiatives, it's about social innovation and employment growth in these spaces as well. It's very difficult to find someone to look at doing retrofitting or solar panels in the North East. There is huge opportunity in this space, so we need to look across the economy and how to take a much more diverse approach. Just one final question. How do we get communities to help you build that place-based just transition data dashboard? That's a good question. I would say we need to help them design what the data is. We need to train people in how to use it. We need to ensure that that's not just the end of the only solution there, it actually drives awareness and activities. So we need to take that out and actually embed that some of that data potentially in climate assemblies and local discourses. Thank you. Gordon MacDonald. Thanks, convener. Good morning, panel. Hopefully you'll be pleased to know I'm not going to ask you about data. I'm going to ask you about some of the points you made in the paper just transition for workers and communities. So in chapter 4.6, lack of local control, you said that during the early years of North Sea oil development, the goal of local capability building was a secondary consideration and then later on in that same section you say in its early phase, oil development was dominated by externally owned companies. Could you say what lessons should we learn from the early days of the oil industry in order to ensure we achieve a just transition and why is local control important? Certainly. Thank you for your question. This is why we thought it's very important to look to the past to learn about the present and the future. Of course, when the oil was discovered there were a lot of national considerations in place and the local capacity building came but came later. We see that sentiment expressed by many stakeholders including the trade union that we are repeating the same mistake today by not building enough manufacturing capacity in the northeast of Scotland and Scotland in general. If we look at the requirements for the local content for many years while we were part of the European Union regulators hit behind the European Union law saying we cannot have any local content requirements, we are now out and yet the local content requirements are not materialising yet. We have some provisions for this in the Scotland leasing process in the contracts for different subsidy scheme allocation. But as we discussed in the report, those provisions are quite big. They do not have a minimum threshold required often and the penalties associated with not meeting the local content requirements do not incentivise compliance very often. There is definitely a scope for strengthening those to develop more capacity for manufacturing and job building around the low-carbon energy sector in the northeast of Scotland. In terms of encouraging that manufacturing, we are often told that Scotland has two Governments whose responsibility would it be in order to encourage that and who is the leavers that would encourage the manufacturing of offshore wind turbines, etc. As to be a collaborative approach between the Scottish Government and the UK Government and public-private partnerships with the industry as well, so there is definitely scope for stronger regulations at the UK level and at the Scottish level for this. But it needs to be a collaborative approach with the industry to have consultations and to make sure that these regulations are achievable. I have one other point that I want to ask you about. In part 5.1, what are we transitioning to? There are a couple of comments that I want to ask you about. Unacademic third sector consortium said that there is a difficulty in breaking the path dependency between economic development and oil gas related industries. It goes on to say that considerable resistance to doing so from companies, Governments and communities largely due to concerns and uncertainties over costs and impacts. You have a quote from the chief exec of Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce where it says that no one is going to come in and pick up things like floating offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture, etc. Because right now it is not commercially viable. My question is how do we ensure a just transition, how do we manage the move from oil and gas to renewables and what support is required either from the Scottish or the UK Government? There is often, and we see that not just in Aberdeen but in other energy cities and regions as well, this perception and narrative that we are moving on from oil and gas and the only industries that we can focus on are carbon capture and storage and hydrogen. Sometimes, like in our case, offshore wind. There is definitely more that can be done to support the development of those industries. We have seen in the last few years that the funding for carbon capture and storage has been on the table and then off the table, the experience with the ACORN project. We have seen with the contracts for difference, the very good experience in the first few rounds, a lot of uptake, the reduction in the strike price for offshore wind and then now the strike price is so low that the latest round did not attract any bits from offshore wind developers. There needs to be continuous monitoring and evaluation of the policies as to whether they are actually delivering the outcomes that we would like to see. But importantly, there is a need for crow's nation and crow's party coherent energy policy, which is currently lacking. In the UK government, we have the two major political parties having widely different stances on the future of the energy sector. In Scotland, we have the energy strategy delayed by two years, which does not instill confidence neither in the oil and gas sector nor in the renewable energy sector. There is a need for a more unified climate, science-based and economy-based approach to energy strategy that is clear for the public and the industry. The Just Transition is a ten-year fund that the Scottish Government has put in place. It is quite long-term, and the indicators that you have established might not see any progress until quite far down the line. What kind of challenges does this present for holding Governments to account? To show that progress is being made when the timescales we are dealing with are quite long, is there any flexibility to look at different indicators as we move through the time period? Absolutely. Even the Government planning for Just Transition is built on constant monitoring and evaluation. We have definitely, across 18 months, changed our approach and scope significantly as well. So yes, there will be a need to evaluate and update this, and I will pass on to John, so I see his hand is up as well. Looking at this question and also the question before about gaps in data, a lot of the data around Just Transition is about numbers and measurement, but one of the things we have been talking about is the way in which this has to bring in marginalised communities and so on. So there is a need for data, lived experience data, as to what is happening to groups that are normally underrepresented and how they can be carried through this process and how it is affecting them. So lived experience data as well as quantitative data is going to be very important. That should be collected on an on-going basis to find out what is happening to communities, the discussion around trust, whether people have trust in the process or whether they see the future that is being produced for them is one that they see positively. We have heard that the Just Transition plan has not been published yet, and you spoke about the money that has been committed already, but a lot of money has already been spent. How can we get assurance that that money has been spent effectively and that it has not been done? Is that actually feeding into the Just Transition already? Thank you for this question. It's a very important one, and it would be very useful to see some sort of evaluation of how the first round of the Scottish Government Just Transition Fund has performed. I am not sure that has been done or published yet, but it would be very useful to see that to have that continuous evaluation that is supposedly embedded in the process. I think my colleague Tavis also had some thoughts. It's a good question. Firstly, I think it's a really good thing that we've got things like participatory budgeting being done. It's unleashing a whole range of local projects in the north-east, which is really positive. There are concerns about how the Just Transition Fund has been allocated, particularly the balance between, say, commercial projects and community projects overall if you look at the E1 funding, but I think we need some sort of formal public evaluation process of how that's going. This is why developing indicators is critically important, how we can measure, say for example, the investment from the fund over time, with linking that to how various indicators are picking up on various aspects that we've covered today across the north-east. So linking those two things is really important, but fundamentally we need to be looking at how quickly are we diversifying the economy, how quickly are our planning responses, they're not quick enough at the moment for the Just Transition Fund. The delay in the draft energy strategy that needs to be looked at and brought forward, for example, how we're building capacities in communities and industries and in partners for these things. So all these things are picked up by the indicators and it's really important to assess how we're going on that way and making it publicly available and sharing the knowledge of what's happening across the projects as well. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. I would like to thank the witnesses very much for their contributions this morning. I now suspend the meeting and move into private session.