Hansard

I offer Roseanna Cunningham good wishes from the Conservatives for a speedy recovery. Given that this would have been her last debate, I, too, would like to pay tribute to her. As everybody knows, we come from extremely different political stables, and we have been adversaries in Perthshire for quite some time. She is a formidable politician who has given great service at Westminster and Holyrood. I wish her a very happy retirement. [Applause.]

I think that we all accept that, during the pandemic, it has been all too easy to forget about the enormousness of the challenge that we face in tackling climate change. The scale of that challenge, together with the worryingly short timescales have focused the minds of several committees in the Parliament in recent months. They are also why the report from the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee is fairly blunt in its analysis of the work that will have to be done in the next parliamentary session.

Chris Stark, who has been mentioned and who is definitely one of the most respected advisers on climate change, has described the Scottish Government’s ambitions as being

“on the fringes of credibility”.—[Official Report, Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, 2 February 2021; c 43.]

I agree with Chris Stark on that point, but that is not to say that the Scottish Government’s ambitions are wrong—far from it. However, there are serious question marks over the deliverability of certain key targets, most especially given some of the Scottish National Party’s recent record.

In the debate, we will concentrate on the question mark over deliverability. There are key issues that need to be addressed if, when it comes to COP26 in a few months’ time, Scotland will be able to demonstrate that she is a world leader in addressing climate change. The strong message coming from many of the witnesses and that is highlighted by the ECCLR Committee report is that much more has to be done to drive the sort of holistic policy approach that the minister described. Too much of the climate change debate has been taking place in silos, which is perhaps understandable.

I will provide just three examples of that. First, we know that there have been significant differences in progress to net zero in the eight sectors that are covered in the plan. For example, we have been doing well in the water industry and in relation to domestic heat in buildings, but much less so with transport.

Has enough been done to ascertain why certain sectors have been making more progress than others? Probably not—although I accept the cabinet secretary’s recent remarks that some of the difference was down to the different pace of technological change. That is a fair comment, but it is not the whole story. If we accept that green transport is a key priority—I have heard the cabinet secretary say that many times, particularly in relation to buses—I question why the Scottish National Party would decide to cut £33 million out of this year’s rail infrastructure budget. That does not make sense to me.

Secondly, we heard quite a lot of criticism at committee about the absence of a universal approach to regional land partnerships—something that has consistently been raised by NFU Scotland, which felt that there was too disjointed an approach to agriculture and forestry and questioned why the regional land partnerships policy had to be on a pilot basis only, when it is clear that there has been much success elsewhere with delivering substantial improvements in biodiversity and financial economies of scale.

Thirdly, concerns have been raised about the ability to link urban and rural policy. Several witnesses felt that the climate change plan did not reflect the needs of different regions sufficiently well, and we need to address that as soon as possible.

Without any question, priority must be placed on the introduction of the circular economy bill, which was promised by the SNP as a flagship piece of legislation. That bill is critical to the climate change plan, so it was disappointing that it had to be delayed. I am sure that my colleague Maurice Golden will say a bit more about that in his summing-up speech.

I turn now to what I see as some of the more difficult and pressing challenges that we face—challenges with which the ECCLR Committee has been wrestling over recent weeks. First, there is the issue of behaviour change and of how easy it will be to deliver that change with encouragement and incentives, rather than by more punitive measures. We all know that consumer behaviour must change if we are to hit more climate change targets. We may already have done some of what is necessary to reduce the use of plastic, to improve the heating in our homes, to ensure that we are buying greener cars and to address some problems with landfill, but there is an awful lot more to be done.

This is where things get difficult. To what extent, for example, should we be taxing consumers in order to effect the changes that we want to see? To what extent should Government dictate the expectations on consumer behaviour? To what extent should economic policy become more statist in its approach, should there be continuing conflicts between the private and public sectors?

Those are all very complex issues, raising questions about tax revenues, procurement and indeed the role of government in society—and we cannot run away from them. The committee has touched on most of those issues, but the Parliament will have to take that forward in the next session.

Secondly, there is the issue of striking a balance, and nowhere is that more important than in our approach to nature. We should acknowledge the huge progress that has been made in many respects, and I pay tribute again to the cabinet secretary for her efforts, particularly with peatlands, but there are some worrying features of the debate.

I put on record my deep-seated concern at the way in which a small minority of so-called environmentalists have attacked many people whose lifeblood is the countryside. The recent attacks on gamekeepers, gillies and stalkers for doing their job in maintaining and enhancing our countryside have been reprehensible, as have been the comments from a small minority who clearly ignore our responsibility to outlaw raptor crime. The approaches of those small but nonetheless vocal minorities are born out of prejudice and ignorance, and I deplore the lack of reasoned debate, as they often flout the available evidence about the activities that they undertake, most especially regarding those who have done so much to improve biodiversity.

The same is true for the stewardship of our beauty spots. Scotland is so rich in its natural assets and, if there has been any silver lining within the very dark Covid cloud, it is that many people want to enjoy them. That comes with responsibility, however, and it means much tougher action to weed out the fly-tippers, litter louts and antisocial campers.

The scale of the climate change challenge that we face is immense. I sometimes wonder if we in this Parliament have been devoting enough time to debating climate change policy in the chamber. I appreciate that the pandemic has made similar demands on debating time, but I look at some of the debates that we have had and I wonder whether we have got our priorities right. A debate about which flags we fly outside the building would surely have been one that we could have done without.

I hope that, in the next session, the Parliament will be able to prioritise climate change far more than has been the case in this session.