 Rhaid o ddweud. I welcome everyone to this. The 21st Meeting of the Standards, Procedure and Public Appointments Committee in 2023. We have received no apologies this morning and the committee is complete. Agender item 1 is for the members to agree to take agenda item 4 in private. Agender item 4 is continuing consideration of the committee's work programme. I would consent to take that in private. Thank you very much. Rwyf ynghylch yn ddegyfnwyr i'r ystod y rhai pethau o'r Cyflau Cymru. Rwyf ynghylch yn ddiweddolol Oliver Mundell, MSP, o ddegyfnwyr ynghylch, o'r cyflau'r cyflau cyflau cyflau'r cyflau. Rwyf ynghylch yn ddegyfnwyr i'r cyflau cyflau cyflau cyflau cyflau cyflau, ac wrth gwrs, pla'r ogym gydweithio gymri o'r ddesod yn iawn i gydweithio'r cyflwrs. Rwy'n fawr i'r gweinfaith ym Mhob i'n mynd i'n weithio, ond dyfodwch i chi i ni gydweithio'r cyflwrs cyflwrs, ac mae'r cyfeirio'r cyflwrs cyflwrs cyflwrs cyflwrs cyflwrs cyflwrs pythio. Mae sydd yn ogylcheddol datblygu, ac mae addysg i ddwyngoedd oedd ar gyfer y cyfnodol iawn yn gyfer y cyfnodol iawn. Rwy'n ei ddweud i'r cyflwynoedd ym Mhwgolir. A'i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i'r cyflwynoedd ym Gwyl, sy'n ddim yn ei wneud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i hollywyr. We recognise that there is not a collective view across the Parliament on the future of nuclear policy, but we recognise that a large number of people are employed in the sector and that there is a significant nuclear footprint in Scotland, which is going to continue for decades to come. We are trying to create a space where the policy issues affecting communities and individuals that we represent can be explored in more detail. Our intention is to focus, to start off with, on those areas where cross-party support does exist, namely around skills and skill shortages, the supply chain and the role for communities in shaping the future of existing nuclear sites. We are also particularly keen to explore and highlight work in relation to decommissioning, which is going to be a major employer and have significant economic and environmental impact in Scotland. I am happy beyond that to take any questions that the committee might have, but I am hopeful that the group will work well and be an opportunity to create that forum that we talk about in our purpose statement. We will try and avoid the deep scientific questions on that. Do any members of the committee have any questions? Can I just kick off on a couple of things on the—sorry, did I cross you there? Oh, Evelyn, my apologies. Oliver, thanks for your introductory remarks. I note your constituency interest in the issue. Obviously, the Government does not see a future for nuclear energy. Do you think that your CPG will focus mainly on decommissioning? Will that be a huge part of its work? Decommissioning will be a huge part, probably, of making up the majority of the work, because that is where the majority of the sites are at in Scotland. However, what we did not want to do was exclude those working in the supply chain or those who continue to work at Tornes and Hunterston from our considerations. We are also keenly aware that there are opportunities for the supply chain in Scotland in relation to new nuclear elsewhere in the UK. We are also aware that, in terms of skills, there is a UK-wide task force for nuclear. A lot of the skills involved in decommissioning and in the supply chain overlap with those in new nuclear. It is essentially the same workforce. Again, we were keen to explore career pathways and opportunities for people living in Scotland. There is also, for example, a research centre at Strathclyde University that looks at advanced nuclear research. I do not think that the Scottish Government's position is that these things should not be happening in Scotland. I think that it relates to the building of new nuclear power stations. I will be quite upfront. There are members in the group who are passionately in favour of new nuclear. There are also members in the group who do not support that position. I would be quite clear that the group is not going to be campaigning for new nuclear sites nor is it going to be campaigning against, but what we did not want to do was exclude people within the industry who are working in Scotland at the moment. I was trying to find, in the kind of art of the possible, the kind of broadest look that works in terms of capturing the cross-party support that is required to have a cross-party group. The vast majority of activity in the nuclear sector in Scotland, both economically and in terms of sheer employment numbers, is going to be in that decommissioning space. I think that that is something that a lot of people do not understand. We say that the Government is against new nuclear, but there are thousands of people today, tomorrow and into the future working in these sites. It is important that the issues that are affecting them are discussed in the Parliament. Just because we disagree on future energy policy does not mean that we should not explore the kind of challenges in the sector. I think that that was a really good balanced answer on the way forward, so thank you for that. I have a question about the only application form for those that are watching. There is a provision to indicate people outside of the Parliament because one of the purposes of a cross-party group is to allow experts access to MSPs so MSPs have more knowledge about something. There are no individuals mentioned and the only organisation that is mentioned is the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which understands that it is going to provide the Secretary at support. Have you had any interest, or are you aware of interest, from both individuals and other organisations that might want to contribute to the CPG? I am aware of wider interest from individuals. I sit on the chap cross-site stakeholder group and regularly attend a range of nuclear-related events, including an event held in Parliament just the other week, which saw a large number of people come to that event. I think that there is interest in engaging with the Parliament. I think that one of the challenges has been that there has been talk of having a CPG on nuclear pretty much the whole time. I have been an MSP, but because of the political space in which we operate, it has been difficult to get that off the ground. I think that there are a number of people in industry and a number of individuals who are interested, but I have been keen to see whether or not it was going to happen before committing. However, I have had conversations with some people in the supply chain and a number of individuals who work in the sector. I am confident with the range of MSPs involved and their geographical relation to the sites. We will get that. My intention is, along with the deputy convener, to write out to anyone who we think would be interested in trying to make it as broad as possible. The other question I was going to raise was in response to the financial benefits or other benefits. Again, there is an indication that nuclear decommissioning authority is going to be the secretariat. There is an estimate of £2,000 for that secretariat support. Are you able to give any indication as to how that was calculated or how it came about? The format for an estimate, obviously, we do not know in year 1 what that cost is going to be. We have spent some time looking at other CPGs, which is quite a range of figures given that I know this committee is looking at the role of CPGs moving forward. I do not wish to call other groups into question, but I think that sometimes it is quite difficult to see how those range of figures come up with. However, we were keen to go at the higher end as an estimate so as to provide as much transparency as possible, but that is primarily intended to cover the staff time of people preparing for meetings, doing agendas, minutes and in order. We discussed at our initial meeting that there was a hope that MSPs might be able to engage more closely with some of the sites, with some companies, with other things out with the Parliament and that there may be costs in facilitating that, not that MSPs would receive any of that £2,000, but that there might be incidental costs in facilitating those visits in terms of time and resource. We did not feel that it was a lost. It is a large figure on paper. It is not across 12 months for a group that plans to be active. It is a ballpark figure. I think that the committee will be reassured that you have done some thinking about it, because, as you say, CPGs are something that will be returning to not an individual basis in the new year. There are some CPGs who appear to have outside organisations helping them that have effectively no cost involved in doing that. I think that this was to try to reflect the fact that people would be paid hours of work to help to support the CPGs. Rather than being a donation of £2,000 cash, it is time to work in hand. That is very helpful. Are there any other questions? Or if not, Oliver, can I thank you for your attendance before the committee this morning? We will consider the item as our next agenda item, and the clerks will inform you in due course of the committee's decision, but can I thank you for coming before us this morning? No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Indeed, agenda item 3 is for the committee to consider whether or not to a called recognition to the proposed cross-party group on civil nuclear industry. Would anyone like to make any comments? Stephen, if I start with you. I think that Oliver expressed very clearly, articulated clearly, why it is important that the interests of this sector and the people who work in it are represented and discussed in Parliament. On that basis, I am more than content that we would approve this. Any other comments? Yes. Clearly, as everyone explored the issue around energy policy, Oliver articulated that very well in the document and in what he said this morning, so that disagreement, if you like, on different views on the future of nuclear energy is clearly an important factor in this consideration. From what we have heard this morning, that has been well considered and clearly for the group to maintain cross-party support. I would rather expect that that would need to continue to be central to its ethos. On that basis, I am content that we proceed. Evelyn? I did go and have a look at other cross-party groups to see if there was anything there already that could fill this space. I actually thought that there is room for this group to be constituted, so I would be quite happy to support, given Oliver's comments earlier. I think that that is very helpful, because I think that one of the things that we have noted in this session is that perhaps there are a number of CPGs that sit in similar areas, and yet here is an area in which there is nothing covered at the moment. Stephen, do you want to come back in? It was just that I wanted to note that, as long as there is cross-party participation in a group, whether or not the group's focus is consistent with a party or government's policy is not really relevant. I think that the relevant thing is that there is cross-party participation. It is very likely that, for example, I might be involved in a number of cross-party groups that would perhaps have positions or views that the current Government might not approve of, and I do not think that that is a reason for not having it. Absolutely. Anything you want to comment on before I formally put the question? I am content with the cross-party support. I think that Oliver did articulate it very well, so I am content. I ask if the members are agreed to a called recognition to the proposed cross-party group on civil nuclear industry. Excellent, thank you very much. I will now move the meeting into private.