Chamber and committees

With regard to construction and the opportunities from net zero—Alexander Burnett might want to come in on this, too—Richard McClelland spoke about “choking” in the labour supply. Is there a danger that immediate pressures might not allow us to get to a trajectory of long-term careers in construction that might involve dual fuel or—as Chris Brodie talked about—reskilling later on? In order to make careers in the sector more attractive, should we be trying to get that modern, dual fuel type of training going on now? Why would people want to go into a career in an area which may be overtaken by events as we move into renewable energies?

It is great to see a panel in real life; you are all very welcome.

My first question is for Paul Little. It is clear that colleges are very agile and responsive, but as “The Cumberford-Little Report” indicated, they are also engines for economic growth in particular localities. I am interested in what you said about your institution’s expertise in supply chain and procurement. With the convener’s agreement, if experts in that area have not contributed to our inquiry, it would be interesting to get their take on the subject, given what we are looking at in our inquiry.

The City of Glasgow College is an anchor and an engine for economic activity. What are local businesses telling you about the current labour supply issues? What are you doing to use your power as a procurer to achieve sustainability of products and people in the place that you lead in?

Thank you. I will let the college know that.

Chris, can you respond to some of Paul Little’s points? We are particularly interested in immediate labour shortages in retail and construction. Paul made a point about whether we are as connected as we can be, in order to be as agile and responsive as we need to be. Bearing in mind the demographic and systemic issues that need to be dealt with, are there things that on which we can move more rapidly, in order to mitigate some of the immediate pressures?

Thank you.

Both of you have been reasonably positive about the outcome of COP26, but a lot of the media coverage has not been as positive. Bearing in mind that there is now agreement on climate change science and that that was not in dispute at COP26, why was more progress not made? Will you provide a more sobering reflection on the conference than we have perhaps had so far?

Thank you, Malini, for persevering with us; it is important that we hear from you. The people of the world will keep up their pressure; they will keep watching—just because the COP has finished, that does not mean that the world’s attention has moved on.

The Glasgow pact refers to the role of young people, the position of women and the position of indigenous people. Did you expect those aspects to be in the pact, or was that a result of the experience and physical presence that was brought to bear by many young people, different non-governmental organisations and representatives of different communities? Did that add real impetus? Was that outcome anticipated?

Thank you. Jim Skea, do you have any reflections on that?

I had hoped to ask Malini Mehra about multilateralism. I understand that she might be back with us, but I will ask Jim Skea some questions first.

What does multilateralism mean in relation to mitigation work? In the workshops in which you were involved, were concerning or helpful geopolitical alignments taking place? On multilateralism, we have discussed the rules on private finance in relation to offsetting. How do we ensure that there is transparency and accountability so that there is real offsetting as opposed to a greenwashing presentation? What is your perspective on multilateralism within companies, not just within the governmental arena?

That is fine. I was trying to make sure that we had a link to that agenda.

First, I thank Malini Mehra for her work at the GLOBE International parliamentary event. I was there throughout the two days, and it was extremely useful. I am interested in your take on the geopolitics of what has happened and what that means for COP27. You said that multilateralism was effective during COP26, but there were also side deals on certain subjects and between different Governments. For example, the premier of China met the US President in recent days. I am interested in your views on the arrangement between India and China, and on the EU’s perhaps lack of presence in relation to some issues.

I am interested in Professor Skea’s points about the Paris agreement and the technical aspects of the rulebook being finally established and set, and what that might mean. That area probably got less coverage compared to the coverage of the outputs in the last few days. Thank you for sharing your reflections on that so quickly after the COP. Will you unpack a bit more what you think the implications of that will be?