Sarah Boyack
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“It must ensure that people get support to make their homes warm and energy efficient; support on solar, heat pumps and heat networks; affordable and accessible buses that they can rely on, with links to our railways; investment in our land to restore our peatlands; and a joined-up approach to food production and biodiversity.”
“Referring to what Ariane Burgess said, I have also been campaigning on the need to urgently address our climate and nature emergencies and to create decent jobs and empower local communities at the same time. For me, being in here is about delivering change that will benefit my constituents.”
“That taught me that constructive hard work and using the powers of our Parliament could deliver real change. For me, it was about investing in our railways—Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall to Milngavie and Stirling to Alloa, and supporting work on the Borders railway—as well as new CalMac ferries, improving island airports and tackling potho…”
“I hope that it is okay that I borrow a minute from my colleague. In the run-up to the 2016 election, I worked on a member’s bill to introduce a transient visitor levy.”
“In the climate change plan, we also set out greater detail on our methodology in order to provide greater transparency on the key assumptions and dependencies. However, Sarah Boyack is absolutely right, and that is where constructive criticism comes in— constructive criticism that recognises all the things in the plan that we need to do.”
“We need an urgent focus on implementation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that a key message from those who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and other parliamentary committees was that it is all about delivery and that the draft plan did not go far enough?”
The complete record
Every one of 502 lines we hold for Sarah Boyack, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“Great British Energy and the United Kingdom’s warm homes plan show the way forward, but the 400,000 homes and buildings in Scotland that are currently at risk from flooding do not need warm words; they urgently need action. People are calling out for transformative change—well-paid, decent jobs in every constituency across the country and community, council and co-operatively owned heat networks and power schemes. It has been an honour to serve in this Parliament and to work with MSPs across the chamber. I have had a great team of staff throughout the years, and I thank them for all their hard work. I also thank all the activists and community members I have worked with and campaigned with. It has been a real privilege. 16:43”
“In the next session, the Parliament will have to work out how to address community heat networks and the installing of solar panels, which are urgently needed on our tenements. In 2009, I successfully amended the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill to include a requirement for all new homes to have whatever renewables were appropriate installed in order to make them more energy efficient. I thank the then finance minister for that—and members can work out afterwards who that is. We are now at a point where we need to accelerate action to address our climate and nature emergencies. We urgently need to get our constituents and businesses the support that they require now.”
“As a former town planner in Central Regional Council, I was hugely proud of that. My first debate in here was on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, responding to Jackie Baillie’s members’ business debate. It is an issue that we have both been passionate about for decades. It is harder to deliver change in opposition, but it is a matter of giving a voice to effective campaigning by constituents, such as on the eye pavilion. It can deliver, even if it takes years to get the result that we need. I was very proud to amend housing legislation to support constituents who were attempting to make tenement repairs. It is now more straightforward for them to do that.”
“That taught me that constructive hard work and using the powers of our Parliament could deliver real change. For me, it was about investing in our railways—Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall to Milngavie and Stirling to Alloa, and supporting work on the Borders railway—as well as new CalMac ferries, improving island airports and tackling potholes. I had a £30 million fund. That would probably not sort out Edinburgh these days, and that was for the whole country. I introduced twenty’s plenty zones, investment in walking and cycling infrastructure and our first national planning framework. I set a target—which was quite radical at the time—of 20 per cent of electricity consumed coming from renewables. I delivered legislation to establish our first national parks: Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms.”
“Referring to what Ariane Burgess said, I have also been campaigning on the need to urgently address our climate and nature emergencies and to create decent jobs and empower local communities at the same time. For me, being in here is about delivering change that will benefit my constituents. That is why I stood to get elected in 1999, for the first session of the Parliament. It was personal. My dad chaired the all-party campaign for a Scottish assembly for a decade in his spare time, and my granny was a Labour activist after the second world war. You can imagine the debates in our family—they never stopped. If someone had told me that I would get elected in 1999, that I would be involved in the coalition negotiations and that I would then become a member of Donald Dewar’s Cabinet, I really would not have believed it.”
“In our national health service, we have overcrowded accident and emergency facilities, inadequate mental health support for children, which will impact their lives, and appalling waiting times for adults. One constituent I have been supporting has been told that it will be a decade before he gets the help that he urgently needs. It has been a privilege to serve the constituents of Edinburgh Central and then the Lothians. That has included local campaigning on issues such as the Dalry baths and a new eye pavilion, as well as the current campaign to save Marionville fire station. I have been endlessly raising Edinburgh’s housing emergency, and I have been highlighting the systemic underfunding of NHS Lothian.”
“I hope that it is okay that I borrow a minute from my colleague. In the run-up to the 2016 election, I worked on a member’s bill to introduce a transient visitor levy. I knew that it would make a difference in Edinburgh by helping to address the challenges and opportunities created by year‑round tourism, which puts pressure on culture, housing and local services. However, democracy kicked in and I did not get elected, so I was delighted to support the 2024 TVL, because it was urgently needed. However, as Mark Griffin commented, only two years later we are back here supporting another TVL bill to address issues that were not fixed in that bill. Details matter, and I believe that we urgently need a new Scottish Government that is ready to fix the systemic issues that our country faces.”
“There was overwhelming public opposition to such a levy from across various sectors and classes of respondents, but the SNP minority administration is still thinking of going ahead with a levy—it has not ditched those plans.”
“The key issue, though, is that it is up to every local authority to decide whether or not they want to use the legislation, and they have to go through thorough legislation to do so. Is that not critical? Murdo Fraser: Sarah Boyack is absolutely right about the practicalities of the legislation. However, the problem—as she will know—is that councils across the country are being squeezed for cash and are trying to find money anywhere they can to make up for the cuts that the Scottish National Party is delivering to them. It is no wonder that they are looking at visitor levies. For example, last year, in my region, Perth and Kinross Council, with an SNP minority administration, ran a public consultation on the visitor levy.”
“We have announced a new levy on private jet usage, introduced a new £2 bus fare cap pilot in Shetland and the Western Isles, and we have also boosted our proposed pace of heat network connections. The fundamental criticisms that came back about the draft plan were about how we measure deliverability. That will be a job for the Parliament in the next session, but it is also about delivering on the plans when they come to the Parliament. Cross-party support will be required in order to deliver on the actions. Unfortunately, that has been sadly lacking in recent years.”
“In the climate change plan, we also set out greater detail on our methodology in order to provide greater transparency on the key assumptions and dependencies. However, Sarah Boyack is absolutely right, and that is where constructive criticism comes in— constructive criticism that recognises all the things in the plan that we need to do. It is absolutely right that we are scrutinised on the delivery of that. That delivery will also be the job of the Parliament in the next session, and it will have to done on a cross- party basis. The nature of that debate must involve the type of constructive criticism that we have just heard from Sarah Boyack, who asked whether we can do more and whether we can give more detail. We have given more detail in the final plan.”
“We need an urgent focus on implementation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that a key message from those who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and other parliamentary committees was that it is all about delivery and that the draft plan did not go far enough? Gillian Martin: We have taken on the recommendations of a number of committees, particularly on the monitoring and evaluation approach, in the final plan. We need to ensure that we are clear about where delivery is on track and where further action is needed, but also about areas that might be slipping. I set out in my statement some of the ways of doing that. It is covered in one of the annexes, which has been significantly improved in terms of the detail.”
“It must ensure that people get support to make their homes warm and energy efficient; support on solar, heat pumps and heat networks; affordable and accessible buses that they can rely on, with links to our railways; investment in our land to restore our peatlands; and a joined-up approach to food production and biodiversity. It must also ensure that councils and communities have the financial support to deliver community heat and power projects that will transform people’s lives. What is new in the final plan? Does the cabinet secretary agree that members in the next parliamentary session must change how we scrutinise implementation? Proper parliamentary scrutiny of the climate change plan has not been enabled today, and we have not heard from the cabinet secretary which recommendations have now been included in the plan.”
“I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of her statement, and I thank all the stakeholders who gave their views on how the draft climate change plan should be strengthened. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s reference to yesterday’s warning that climate change is now accelerating and will negatively impact on people’s lives. I note, for example, the 400,000 homes and buildings in Scotland that are now at risk of flooding. It is crucial that the next Scottish Government has strong leadership and that it focuses on delivery.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the regulatory framework currently in place to monitor the development and operation of data centres in Scotland, in relation to ensuring that their energy use, water consumption and any environmental impacts are being effectively controlled. (S6O-05674)”
“That is woven into the fabric of Edinburgh’s medical heritage and will continue to guide its future. That is truly inspiring, and it is an important history for us to celebrate today. 13:16”
“She published that rejection in newspapers and got six more women to apply: Mary Anderson, Emily Bovell, Matilda Chaplin, Helen Evans, Edith Pechey and Isabel Thorne. They worked together as a group and were accepted. I wanted to put their names on the record. Today, women continue to shape the future of Edinburgh medical school. As Martin Whitfield said, women such as Heen Shamaz represent the next generation of clinicians and researchers, and symbolise the continuity of progress and the growing leadership of women in the field. Progress in medicine is not just about science; it is about who we are and our society. The inclusion, recognition and advancement of women has strengthened the profession and enriched the university’s global impact.”
“The university’s 300 faces of Edinburgh medical school project has also been instrumental in bringing forward lesser-known stories of women who contributed to that medical progress. The Edinburgh seven have already been mentioned. They were the first women in Britain to matriculate at a university, and their struggle to gain access to medical education paved the way for generations of women who followed. It was a major achievement. The Herald has highlighted that women spent a century fighting to get into medicine, and that the Edinburgh seven—the first female medical students admitted to a university— were among the trailblazers. They were led by Sophia Jex-Blake. She applied to study and the medical faculty accepted her application, but the university court blocked it. That was challenged.”
“Those events will enable lots of different people to attend—we can all attend, and we should. Like colleagues, I think that, as we celebrate 300 years of Edinburgh medical school, it is vital to recognise the women whose contributions have shaped medicine in Scotland and far beyond. As part of the anniversary celebrations, a special programme was brought together featuring Professor Lorna Marson, Dr Lesley Dawson and, as Martin Whitfield mentioned, final-year medical student Heen Shamaz to honour the women of Edinburgh medicine. Their discussion highlighted both the historical barriers that women faced and the extraordinary achievements that they went on to deliver.”
“Its alumni have made a profound difference not just in Scotland but, as several of us have said, across the UK and the world. As we celebrate that progress, we must also acknowledge that many people still struggle to access the care and support that they need. I also want to highlight the important economic benefits that are brought by the international community that chooses to study and work here, contributing to growth across Scotland. I also cannot speak about the University of Edinburgh without highlighting the massive financial challenges that the university and its staff are facing. However, to go back to being positive, throughout the anniversary year, a wide range of events will showcase the school’s achievements, including the Edinburgh tartan parade, the Everywoman festival, an alumni weekend and many more.”
“The university’s commitment to ensuring that local communities also feel the tangible positive impact of the 300- year celebration of the faculty of medicine is hugely worth celebrating; the global partnerships that have been built by the medical school are inspiring; and the work that is being carried out right across the world by its alumni reflects the exceptional standards of education and the lasting relationship that is formed between students and their lecturers. Edinburgh offers a wide range of sectors and opportunities for those who study medicine, extending far beyond clinical practice. Many alumni have gone on to create new innovations, launch businesses and shape entirely new fields in medicine. The discoveries and achievements of the medical school are remarkable.”
“I am pleased to speak in today’s debate, and I thank Martin Whitfield for bringing it to the chamber. I am immensely proud of the achievements of the University of Edinburgh. Our city has long been at the heart of public health, and, over the past 300 years, the medical school has produced extraordinary scientific work and world-leading research. Students from across the world have come to Edinburgh to study medicine and have then gone on to make significant contributions in countries far beyond our own.”
“I hope that the cabinet secretary takes away the point that all the committees that have been engaged in the discussion have called for more action and more clarity and for getting on with it. We cannot wait. We are almost at the end of this parliamentary session and we are debating the draft plan. The next Parliament needs to debate the final plan and to get on with the action. 15:54”
“We need to tackle the risks of flooding and sea level rise, because there are now vulnerable coastal areas in constituencies across the country. Homes and businesses will be at risk, and the insurance sector is already lobbying us about that. That is why we need a credible climate change plan. I will come to my conclusion. Long-term action is not where we need to be. We have to be planning now so that for each of the first five, the second five and the third five years, we have a plan for industry, home owners and every sector of our economy. That plan needs to include resilience, adaptation and preparedness, and that will need cross-Government thinking.”
“The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee also recommends that we have a comprehensive mix of performance indicators across the breadth of the plan. I think that one of the best ideas is having a dashboard that is accessible to the public, so that they can see what they can contribute and what progress is being made. That would enable us to see where we have made progress and where we need to catch up. Bringing people with us will be critical. People need support, but they also need to understand the benefits of tackling the climate emergency. We know that more than 400,000 homes and buildings in Scotland are now at risk of flooding in the next decade. That is a real issue, not a theoretical one.”
“The energy issue is key to that, but there is also the issue of support. If we have a clear plan and confident supply chains, industry will make investments. If we partner with Great British Energy and use the national wealth fund, we can get investment that will deliver the energy infrastructure that we need. The Climate Change Committee has also highlighted the need for credible monitoring and evaluation. We will not have annual targets, but we will need annual pathways for sectoral emissions and clear indicators of progress. That way, if progress is not being made, we do not wait five years to have a catch-up, but get on track and do the work now. Accountability must be built into the system, not added on as an afterthought.”
“We need to have a public conversation about the environmental impacts of imported food, the water footprint of global supply chains and the emissions associated with different types of products. We need to support our domestic producers so that the transition is fair for them and so that it is viable. We also need to look at forestry targets, which are off track. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has spent a lot of time talking about peatland restoration. There is a huge amount of work to be done on peatlands, and we are leading on it, but there are barriers to delivery. Those two areas are central to our meeting our carbon budgets but also to protecting our natural environment. Let us remember that it is a climate and a nature crisis, so we need joined-up solutions. We also need action on industrial emissions.”
“Yes, we need electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and there has been progress with those, but we need to focus in particular on affordable solutions. Not everyone will be able to afford an EV, and as was raised at the disability conference that we had a couple of weeks ago, not everyone is able to drive, so we need affordable public transport. The bus passes are brilliant, but we need the buses to use them on. We need buses particularly in our rural areas, to enable people to get to work. Agriculture and land use require a lot more work, and the comments of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee convener on that were important. Farmers and crofters are willing to be part of the transition, but they need clarity, support and fair funding.”
“I particularly want to focus on the fact that 25 per cent of homes in Scotland are tenements. There will be a bit of heavy lifting for the final plan there. How will we do it? We are allowed to have joint work in tenements, with people coming together to repair and maintain tenements, so why do we not have such an option for solar heat and heat networks? We need to think about the practicalities of how this will work, because after years of waiting for the energy strategy, we need action now. From what I have heard at the conferences that I have been to, heat networks are a practical solution for both urban areas and rural areas. All the authorities have a plan, but they need investment and support to implement it. Transport has also been mentioned by several colleagues. We need a more realistic approach to that.”
“It is about using the tech that is available now where we can use it, so that we do not have to import nuclear-powered electricity from down south. I come back to my point about solar. The Climate Change Committee has made the point that we are not meeting our heat pump targets fast enough; in fact, doing so has been kicked into the second or third Scottish carbon budgets. We need to ensure that there are proper opportunities for all our homes in that regard. The withdrawal of grants for solar panels was a step backwards, because it stopped many people who were about to install a heat pump, knowing that, if they put on solar panels, that would reduce their energy costs. However, that is not happening now. There are also huge missed opportunities for supply chains.”
“That commitment could include rooftop solar and ground-mounted solar farms, which are now compatible with agriculture, and should involve thinking about where battery storage fits in. We need a joined-up plan. Solar Energy UK has called for a sector deal for solar to recognise that the tech can make a real contribution. I want to focus on the issue of housing. Stephen Kerr: Will Sarah Boyack add nuclear energy to the portfolio of sources of energy that we need in order to sustain our economy? Sarah Boyack: I have done so on many occasions. Torness is next door to my constituency, and there are hundreds of skilled and knowledgeable people working there. It is not about building nuclear plants everywhere.”
“Many things need to be addressed, including electrification, which several colleagues have talked about. One of the most concerning omissions from the plan is solar power; there is an absence of any real consideration of it. It is one of the cheapest and quickest-to-deploy renewable technologies available, yet it is hardly present in the plan. Solar Energy UK has been clear in its evidence that the absence of solar and battery storage is a major strategic failure that risks undermining our wider energy ambitions. The Scottish Government should maintain the ambition of 4GW to 6GW solar capacity by 2030, and it should go further to commit to a 9GW target for 2035.”
“The Climate Change Committee’s warning on the second and third Scottish carbon budgets is particularly stark. Edward Mountain: I echo many of Sarah Boyack’s words about the challenges that the next Parliament faces. However, one of the biggest challenges is for the next Parliament to ensure that it does not discuss the climate change plan at the fag end of the session. It must do so much earlier on, so that people can be involved in it and see the plan when it is properly laid. Sarah Boyack: The opportunity for the next Parliament is that there will be a final plan that it can scrutinise and focus on. Given the huge turnover of parliamentarians, it is critical that the next Parliament prioritises discussion on the issue across the Government and across parties as soon as members are returned.”
“The plan will affect all our committees, and it will require action across the Government. That is absolutely critical. We need investment and action right across the Government and a plan for the future. I am very conscious that the Government’s climate change plan team is analysing the consultation feedback that it has received and that the final report will be published at the end of the month. The challenge is that, by the end of the month, the Parliament will have dissolved. Ensuring that there is a focus on the climate change plan will be a challenge and an opportunity for the next Parliament, because delivery will be critical. The Climate Change Committee’s report makes it clear that there are gaps in delivery, gaps in understanding and gaps in the practical steps that are needed to meet legally binding targets.”
“I thank all those across the Parliament, particularly the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, who have been involved in the consultation exercises that have been carried out to engage people on the issue. A document cannot do this—we all have to do it together. The challenge is that, although there are areas of ambition in the plan, there are also areas from which ambition is entirely missing. As priorities have been chosen, some key elements have been left behind. It has been excellent in the debate to hear from a raft of parliamentary committees, including the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee; the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee; the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee; and the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee.”
“How will I follow that? I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour as we discuss the draft climate change plan. When the plan is finalised, it will shape Scotland’s environmental, economic and social future for decades to come. The plan has to get it right, because the risks are high for our constituents, our land, and our economy. In recent months, I have been involved in scrutinising the plan in the Economy and Fair Work Committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I have also been involved in meetings with the climate change plan team and the advisory group. I have attempted to engage constructively with the cabinet secretary by sharing concerns and giving her lots of suggestions about how we can improve the plan, because it has to work.”
“I therefore hope that the Scottish Government will engage constructively with the findings of the report, which seeks to identify some of the gaps so that they can be addressed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Clare Adamson to open on behalf of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. 15:18”
“That follows evidence that we heard from academics, who emphasised that the Scottish Government must ensure that both of those prioritised aspects take account of the individual characteristics of sites, and so ensure that the right tree goes in the right place and that the most highly degraded peatlands are tackled, as opposed to activities being focused on less- degraded or more easily restored sites. In conclusion, it is fair to say that the draft climate change plan has left the committee with more questions than answers. We expect to see the Scottish Government make improvements to both chapters in the final CCP to provide further clarity about how emissions reduction pathways for agriculture and land use will be delivered in practice.”
“However, they also told us that the Government must play its part in providing certainty about public funding to give businesses the confidence to invest in the workforce and equipment that will be needed to ramp up capacity. The committee believes that the final CCP will provide an opportunity for the Scottish Government to set out clearly how it will finance tree planting and peatland restoration in the longer term, thereby giving the private sector much- needed clarity. The committee also recommended that the final CCP should include details of how peatland restoration and tree-planting activities will be prioritised.”
“I turn to the land use chapter of the draft CCP. The Scottish Government’s main policy commitment was to reduce emissions by introducing new targets to restore more than 400,000 hectares of degraded peatland by 2040 and to increase annual tree planting to 18,000 hectares by 2030. The committee heard strong support for those new targets on the ground that they demonstrate a clear commitment by the Government to develop those sectors in the long term. Although some stakeholders questioned whether those targets are achievable, those involved in delivering peatland restoration and forest projects made it clear that they are ready to scale up their operations to meet the ambitions set out in the draft CCP.”
“Those who were in support pointed to the economic cost of a declining livestock sector in Scotland and to the potential for that to lead to the offshoring of livestock emissions to other countries to meet domestic demand. However, given that almost half of Scotland’s agricultural emissions come from livestock production, some stakeholders questioned whether the Scottish Government could deliver its climate ambitions without dealing with the sector’s highest emitter. Having weighed up both arguments, the committee believes that it is important to ensure that any shortfalls in emissions reductions caused by not reducing livestock numbers are being compensated for through deeper reductions in other sectors. We tasked the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee with exploring that as part of its wider consideration of the draft plan.”
“The delay to the support plan has hampered the committee’s ability to scrutinise the draft CCP, which meant that we could not come to a view on the emissions reduction pathway proposed in the agriculture chapter of the draft plan, because we simply did not have all the information that we needed. The only option open to us was to recommend that our successor committee in the next session of Parliament should examine the linkages between the rural support plan, the final CCP and the wider agricultural reform programme to ensure that they show sufficient leadership and ambition for the agriculture sector. The committee also considered the Scottish Government’s decision not to reduce livestock numbers in order to reduce agricultural emissions, and we heard a range of views on that.”
“I thank the member for raising that issue, which I, too, have raised. If the agriculture sector is to be able to make the transition that is needed, does it not need long-term assistance schemes that will help to fund innovative farming and change farming practices to give it the support that it needs now, as our climate begins to change? Finlay Carson: I could not agree more. Sadly, however, very little policy has come before the Parliament other than legislation that ensures continuity of the common agricultural policy. We believe that that creates a huge amount of uncertainty around how the farming sector will deliver the plan’s aims.”
“We need to use digital technologies in ways that are fair, transparent and beneficial for Scotland. Let us agree to pass the bill, because it will reflect progress. 14:40”
“For example, the Scottish Government’s energy skills passport—launched as a digital platform to help workers to move from the oil and gas sector to the renewables sector—shows how digital tools can support workforce transition, but delays and limited uptake demonstrate the need for clearer systems and better integration. Our agreeing to a stronger legal framework for digital assets today might help to ensure that such initiatives are more effective in the future. Ultimately, the bill’s purpose is to clarify the status of digital assets as property in Scots private law. Doing so will provide greater certainty for individuals, businesses, investors and the legal sector. As new technologies emerge, new risks will inevitably follow. It will be the Parliament’s responsibility in future years to ensure that the law keeps pace.”
“The committee noted that the environmental impact of digital assets has not yet been fully considered. The minister acknowledged that that sits within a wider discussion about energy consumption and sustainable power sources, which are issues that apply to many emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. As Scotland has significant renewable energy capacity, we should ensure that the development of digital assets aligns with our ambitions for net zero. Continued research into the environmental implications of such technologies is essential. Digital assets have the potential to support our transition to net zero in practical ways.”
“When the bill is passed, we need to reflect on how to communicate it so that people understand how the law will work. The stage 3 amendments that the minister lodged are particularly important in relation to the removal of the requirement for “exclusive control”. Those sensible amendments have improved the clarity of the bill. The concept of exclusivity is not necessary for establishing ownership, and removing it brings the law on digital assets more in line with how we treat physical property. For legislation of this nature, it is crucial that the legal framework is understandable and workable. As Dr Alisdair MacPherson and Professor Burcu Yüksel Ripley have highlighted, Scotland has very limited legislation in relation to new forms of digital assets, so reform is needed to provide certainty for individuals, businesses and our courts.”
“Digital assets are becoming an essential part of Scotland’s economic landscape, as has been mentioned in the debate. Their importance and the opportunities that they bring will only continue to grow. The Economy and Fair Work Committee supported the Scottish Government’s property law approach for defining digital assets as the best way of future proofing the definition. However, several stakeholders noted that the terminology and approach would not be familiar to those who work in the sector, which could make it difficult for those working with digital assets to ensure that the law applies to them in the way that they expected. That summarises the concerns that we discussed about the implementation and understanding of digital assets.”
“I am pleased to speak in this stage 3 debate as a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which has scrutinised the bill over recent months. I thank everyone who has provided evidence, as well as my fellow committee members and our clerks for their thoughtful work throughout the process. Although it is a relatively short bill and the number of amendments was limited, it is vital that legislation in such a fast-moving and technical area receives careful scrutiny. As we move further into a digital age, clarity in the law becomes increasingly important. For that reason, Scottish Labour will support the bill today. I start off in an unusual position, having agreed with the previous two speakers—one from the Government and one from the Conservatives.”
“There are other funders out there, including Great British Energy, which I have written to, because it is supposed to support nascent technologies, too. I am helping and reaching out to other funders. I am also looking at other ways in which WES can be supported in kind in the future to allow it to have more diverse funding. However, as Sarah Boyack will appreciate, the Scottish Government has faced a very difficult fiscal landscape this year.”