Seòmar agus comataidhean

But it will only do that with packaging—plastics, of course, are used ubiquitously. I will leave that one there.

My final question, cabinet secretary, is on another difficult conversation that needs to be had about biofuels, which, as you know, will require increased timber production. We already have difficult conversations with the agriculture sector about land being taken out of agriculture for things like reforestation and, in this case, commercial forestry. The aviation industry wants to convert to biofuels. That is a great idea, except that there is not enough land on planet earth to grow enough timber to keep the aviation industry at its current size. How much of Scotland’s land are we talking about putting under commercial forestry for this? Is there an understanding of the scale of the land that would be required to feed Grangemouth that timber?

We have spoken about guidance already, but would you suggest anything else that should be included in the guidance? For example, during the committee’s visit to North Ayrshire on Monday, we heard that they had had good success by taking as their starting point the inclusive growth diagnostic and a map of regional land and assets. In that way, they knew where the problems were and where their assets were so that they could understand what they were doing. Would that be a good place for our new community wealth building partnerships to start? Is there anything else that should be in the guidance to make sure that this works?

You mentioned supply. My question is substantially about demand, because the market by itself will not demand recycled plastics, as they are more expensive and might be lower quality depending on how they have been manufactured. Are Governments willing to force demand by essentially putting in place taxes on new plastics so that recycled plastics can compete?

We are in a cost of living crisis. One of the unpalatable things that people have to come to terms with is doing things such as taxing polluting products such as new plastic. Are Governments willing to do that? Do we have that appetite?

I have a more general question for you. The committee went on a wonderful visit to North Ayrshire on Monday, and one of the questions that we put to some of the organisations there, which are on the ground and delivering community wealth building with projects that are benefiting people, was about how we measure the success of community wealth building. People in the room talked about building connections, crisis support, quality of life and other opportunities. Some of my concern is about how we measure that in the bill. In the proposed statement, ministers must set out how they intend to

“reduce economic wealth inequality”,

which is fine—I do not have a problem with that—and

“support economic growth”.

I am worried that “economic growth” will be explicitly interpreted to mean an increase in gross domestic product at the expense of all of the other lovely things that we know are so important, such as opportunity, crisis support and quality of life. Is economic growth the right way to measure the success of the bill, or are there better ways to do that?

My final question is on the relevant and specified bodies lists, which I have a few issues with, but I wondered about your thoughts. One of my issues is that some of the bodies on the specified public bodies list have vast tracts of land and other assets, but other bodies do not, so they are wildly unequal in terms of what they can bring to the table for community wealth building.

What are your thoughts on that and on whether all the right organisations are included? I notice that although regional colleges are on the relevant bodies list, local colleges, community councils and other organisations such as health boards are not. Are the enterprise agencies in the right place on the list? Do you have any thoughts about the lists?

My second question is more about local authorities. In the survey that was conducted among local authorities and the community wealth building practitioners network, only eight of Scotland’s 32 local authorities said that they were already leading on a community wealth building strategy and action plan. That is a quarter. What is the status of our local authorities in terms of their knowledge, ability, willingness and resources to make progress here?

That is useful. I want to delve a bit further into that point and some of the points that Councillor Forson made about how community wealth building partnerships might be made effective and cross the implementation gap, rather than just adding another layer.

Do you want to add anything about the accountability, governance and structure of the partnerships and how to make them effective?

My final question is on the relevant and specified bodies lists, which I have a few issues with, but I wondered about your thoughts. One of my issues is that some of the bodies on the specified public bodies list have vast tracts of land and other assets, but other bodies do not, so they are wildly unequal in terms of what they can bring to the table for community wealth building.

What are your thoughts on that and on whether all the right organisations are included? I notice that although regional colleges are on the relevant bodies list, local colleges, community councils and other organisations such as health boards are not. Are the enterprise agencies in the right place on the list? Do you have any thoughts about the lists?

I have two high-level questions and then a couple more that will get into a bit more detail and expand on your earlier points. The first question is about the second provision in the bill. The top of the bill almost sets out its purpose, which is to

“reduce economic and wealth inequality”.

That is great. Its purpose is also to

“support economic growth in and across Scotland”.

Is economic growth the right thing for the bill to try to achieve? Is growth, which is presumably measured in gross domestic product, a measure of an effective economy? Is it a measure of a prosperous economy? Is that the right thing to have right at the top of the bill?

I will move on to questions about tax powers and fiscal powers. I am curious about whether you feel that there is an alignment between the intentions of the Scottish Government in the NSET and the decisions that it makes in the budget. When scrutinising the budget, I find it hard to understand how it contributes to the NSET, but maybe you have more insight into that.