Hansard

I am grateful for the tenor and spirit of the minister's speech. It may come as a surprise to some in this chamber and elsewhere that I do not seek to take issue with the principles and intentions of the Executive's motion.

As I have previously intimated, to some incredulity from Labour and Liberal members, there are areas where it is my party's intention not simply to oppose, but to be supportive. There are issues that divide us, as in this morning's debate, but sustainable development is different. The concept requires us all to plan to create a better society. I hope that the minister will accept the sincerity of my remarks and I look forward to being able to provide the Executive with support and assistance.

I am grateful for the minister's comments about our amendment, but I wish to press it none the less. It has been proposed not just by the SNP, but by the World Wide Fund for Nature, which approached the minister earlier this week. The amendment is meant to be constructive and to flesh out the bare bones of the motion. It is intended to ensure that noble aspirations can be quantified and met, and that the rhetoric of this Parliament is matched by action in public.

What is sustainable development? Definitions abound, but I am taken by the one coined by the World Commission on Environment and Development, to which the minister referred in her speech. It defines sustainable development as

"meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

On that, the minister and I are united.

We are now in the 21st century and we all recognise that the earth's resources are finite. Generations ago, no thought was given to the possibility that some resources that seemed abundant would run out. That is not a condemnation of those who came before us, as they did not enjoy the knowledge that is available to us. They lived at a time when the prospect of exhausting resources was simply inconceivable. Just as, before Christopher Columbus, it was believed either that the earth was limitless or that people would fall off the edge if they went too far, until recently we were blind to the environmental disaster that was fast approaching. Times have changed, however. We have opened our eyes— where once we were blind, we now can see. We can quantify our world. We can calculate the resources that we have used and squandered and measure the limits of what remains. We can

quantify the damage that we have inflicted on our planet and the danger that faces it unless we change our ways.

Sustainable development is about more than environmental protection; it is about planning the interaction of our economy, our environment and our society to their mutual advantage. Those three elements cannot be examined in isolation. Their interaction needs to be in harmony. If we distort the balance, we run the risk of jeopardising one of the components, each of which is vital. That is why the promotion of sustainability must be an underpinning philosophy, not a mandatory policy to be applied rigidly without proper appreciation of its effects.

There are occasions when a particular policy may have negative consequences for the environment but must be implemented for economic or social reasons. Similarly, a policy may be economically advantageous but have to be rejected because of the damage that it would inflict on the environment and because it would undermine society. We cannot pursue short-term growth at any cost, because the future competitiveness of Scotland as a country in which we live, work and play depends on safeguarding our priceless environmental assets. A socially progressive policy, too, may have to be curtailed because of its economic or environmental impact.

Sustainable development is not environmental Luddism; nor is it the slash and burn of unrestrained free-market capitalism or unlimited social libertarianism. It is simply a sensible balance of environmental protection, wealth creation and social justice. United they stand, divided they fall.

Some small nations have already shown the way; where they have led, we must aspire to follow. The Netherlands, for example, has sustainability written into its constitution. Its commitment is exemplified by article 21, which reads:

"The public authorities shall endeavour to ensure a good quality of life in the Netherlands and to protect and enhance the living environment."

When people ask us why we need independence, I tell them to look at the Netherlands, and then to look at us. They have a constitution that has sustainability written into it. We have Trident on the Clyde and a nuclear industry that we neither sought nor need.

Let me give an example of where sustainable development should be pursued through a coherent national plan. It is widely recognised— and the minister touched on this—that many in Scotland suffer appalling fuel poverty. However, we have rich energy resources over which we have little or no control. We have a nation jeopardised, and sometimes poisoned, by a nuclear industry that we do not need and did not seek.

We have been given an opportunity that we have not yet taken—an opportunity that could be even more advantageous than the discovery of North sea oil off our shores should have been. We are ideally placed to harness from nature what has been given in abundance by wind, wave and sun. We have a bountiful opportunity to harness an environmentally friendly resource for the national collective good, with substantial economic potential for socially liberating advantage. As a nation, we have an opportunity collectively to move away from mass exploitation of expensive, finite resources towards exploitation of energy resources close to home that are both sustainable and renewable.

We have been bequeathed greater advantages than many other nations. So far we have not used them, but abused other resources that cannot be replenished. Now we have the opportunity to leave a legacy of affordable, accessible and renewable energy for future generations. We have to aspire to utilise those resources socially, economically and environmentally for our benefit.

In Scotland, the number of people employed in the wind industry is 200; in Denmark, it is 10,000. We can create jobs. In Scotland, 15 per cent of our electricity comes from renewable resources, but in Norway 100 per cent does. We can create a cleaner, better environment. No longer should young and old Scots huddle around fires in winter, unable to heat themselves, never mind their houses, while other resources, which cannot be replaced by future generations, are squandered.

Scotland entered the 20th century with one in five people having some involvement with the mining industry; we enter the 21st century with one deep mine in Scotland, a landscape in the central belt that was savaged by that industry, and communities and individuals scarred and diseased by the pursuit of coal. We now have the opportunity to ensure that history does not repeat itself for our current energy resources. We can create a sustainable, renewable energy policy. We can and must build a better nation for a fairer world.

In summary, we are happy that the minister has raised this matter. She can rest assured that her worthy intentions have our support. Our criticism— if we have any—concerns the lack of detail and the limit of the aspiration. We believe that our amendment adds to the detail and provides the mechanism to achieve the worthy aims that she espoused.

I move amendment S1M-486.1, to insert at end:

"and urges the Scottish Executive, in order to fulfil that

commitment, to prepare, through consultation, a strategy for implementation including an analysis of principal issues to be addressed, an indication of the targets and standards expected to be met, arrangements for independent monitoring and strategic direction for those expected to meet such commitments."