Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 05 October 2021
I will be brief.
I very much share the frustrations that Monica Lennon has just outlined, and I am grateful to Donald Cameron for the characteristically forensic way in which he set out many of the issues at play.
This debate does not paint the Parliament in a particularly good light. It speaks to an almost dysfunctional relationship between Scotland’s two Governments. Like Monica Lennon, I think, from what I can tell, that there seems to be little substantive disagreement between both Governments regarding the actual policies that are contained in the UK Environment Bill, to which the Scottish Parliament consented in November last year.
The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s report confirms that there are only “small drafting differences” between the proposed approaches for incorporating the guiding principles. According to the committee, the policy differences “appear very minor”. However, the Scottish Government has somehow found time to platform what can only be described as a constitutional spat. That is despite the fact that, over recent weeks, we have seen important debates on important subjects squeezed for time—or, indeed, squeezed out altogether. In that context, this debate hardly feels like the most productive use of our time.
When the Parliament gave its consent to the UK Environment Bill in November last year, I spoke in the debate. At the time, I warned that
“the climate ... does not care about the constitution.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2020; c 59.]
A year on, that warning appears just as relevant, even as the climate emergency has become even more urgent.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats are committed to doing everything possible to minimise the damaging legacy of Brexit, especially in the area of environment policy. Sadly, by the end of this debate, we will be no further forward in achieving that mission.
We will support the amendment in Monica Lennon’s name.