Sustainable Development
Environmental and sustainable policies are at the heart of everything that our Executive stands for. In moving this motion, I want to keep sustainable development at the top of the agenda and to demonstrate the way in which we are making sustainable development a reality.
It is right for this Parliament to declare its support not only for what the Scottish Executive is doing, but for making sustainable development an integral part of the democratic process in Scotland. This is not about academic theories; it is about the way in which we make development sustainable in the long run. We want, and I quote from Brundtland,
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
For the Scottish Executive, sustainable development is about two things. First, it is about making decisions with all the issues on the table, ensuring that we understand the implications for the three arms of sustainable development— economic growth, social justice and the environment. Secondly, it is about taking a long- term view. We have become used to talking about issues on a short time scale—a political time scale—and to looking no more than five years ahead. We must think about delivering continuous progress over a much longer period.
Sustainable development is not new; it came to world prominence at the Rio summit in 1992. In 1994, the UK was among the first countries to address sustainable development. In 1999, the Secretary of State for Scotland's advisory group on sustainable development set out its proposals to the Scottish Parliament. Throughout the world, countries are addressing the challenge of sustainable development in ways that meet their needs, as Brundtland suggested.
Issues such as climate change require global action. Making a commitment to sustainable development is no longer an option for us; it is vital to our lives and is a matter of life and death for future generations. It must be central to the work of government at all levels, and it needs to be translated into everyday language and practical methods. We must address the ways in which we can change our behaviour.
Last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland's advisory group on sustainable development submitted its final report. It had worked for five years to bridge the gap between the aspirations of Brundtland and the action that was needed in Scotland. The report sets out 10 key action points, which are addressed not to the Scottish Executive, but to this Parliament. It is an excellent piece of work and I commend it to members. In a sense, it has been my route map for the past eight months. As a top priority, the advisory group said that the Parliament and the Executive should demonstrate committed leadership. It also said that we should have a debate on sustainable development.
Today's debate is the start of our discussions in the Scottish Parliament. We must further that debate so that people other than those who are already committed will begin to talk about the issue. The people who have the power to change our lives and deliver sustainable change should be involved in developing the structures and mechanisms that will make the change a long- term one.
We will report to Parliament; I intend to keep members informed of progress. A key part of the remit of the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland is to support Cabinet colleagues in attempts to embed sustainable development in all their policies and programmes. One of the group's first conclusions was that some key players from outside the Scottish Executive should be invited to join it. We must ensure that some ownership of the group is by organisations other than the Executive. We also want the group's work to make a difference—that means securing the involvement of people from a range of sectors, in particular from the business, environmental and education sectors.
I am delighted to announce the first of our appointments to the group; Kevin Dunion, director of Friends of the Earth Scotland has agreed to be a member. I invited him to join not merely so that he would agree with what we said, but so that he would help us to push on with the implementation of sustainable development objectives. I will inform Parliament of the full membership of the group as it is agreed.
Crucially, devolution gives us the opportunity to decide on the implementation of policies that will be best for Scotland. Last week, we invited tenders for work on Scottish indicators of sustainable development. I know that for many people sustainable development is somewhat intangible, but we need to know whether we are making progress and whether the steps that we are taking are steps in the right direction. There are past examples of such indicators being produced in Scotland—that gives us a strong starting point. I have asked experts to look at that work and to compare it with the best in Britain, Europe and the world and to identify the best indicators for Scotland. We must also ensure that
those indicators have wider ownership than merely that of the Parliament; the Executive and I will be running a consultative process from early in the summer to ensure that. Once the indicators have been established, we can start to build objectives and targets into all our programmes.
We need to set some priorities now, however. The key priorities in sustainable development should be to tackle the issues of waste, energy and travel. We know that reduction in the waste of resources is right; we know that raising energy efficiency and encouraging renewable energy is right; and we know that there is much more that can be done to make travel more sustainable. Waste, energy and travel bring costs to every business. Those are key concerns for everybody, every day. They are also key issues in the achievement of social justice. We have powers and we must ensure that they are used to maximum effect.
I want to ensure that we provide guidance and assistance to a range of bodies in Scotland. That guidance will enable them to relate their everyday work to the Executive's overall goals for sustainable development. The ministerial group has agreed to convene a group that will develop guidance on identifying new approaches to the key issues and on how work on those issues should be related to other initiatives.
Delivery by the Executive on the issues of waste, energy and travel will mean that companies will perform better and that public bodies will make better use of our money. We will all benefit not only in the future, but now. The challenge is to improve practice in order to improve our economic prosperity, to deliver on aspirations for social justice and to address long-term environmental quality. Using indicators, and with guidance and initiatives on waste, energy and travel, the Executive will have a powerful and practical approach to sustainable development.
We are not alone—through the devolved Administrations in Britain and through the UK Government, there are initiatives to take sustainable development forward. The National Assembly for Wales has begun work on the issue. I have met ministers from the Republic of Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive—ideas are coming together there, too. In England, the regional development agencies are advancing sustainable development as part of their remit. Even with all that activity, there is still value in our all coming together and considering an overview for the UK as a whole.
The UK Government has proposed replacing both the British Government panel on sustainable development and the UK round table on sustainable development with a new sustainable development commission. I have agreed to work with the UK Government in establishing that commission to ensure that it reflects the interests of people in Scotland and to ensure that its membership, remit and work programme help in examination of sustainable development practice. The commission must also add new ideas and innovation that we in Scotland can also examine. It is vital that we remain plugged in at the UK level while engaging at a European level.
We have done much in the past eight months— our Parliament is already beginning to exert a new force for sustainable development. The constitutional steering group recommended that Executive bills should be accompanied by policy memorandums to cover the effects of those bills on sustainable development, among other things. I would argue that that is beginning to concentrate minds—we must think carefully about the impact of every bill. For some issues, such as the national park, that might seem relatively straightforward. For other issues, thinking is much more difficult and at a less advanced stage. None the less, that approach is a useful discipline and I hope that we can develop it.
For example, we know that the planning system will have profound effects on our future—it defines much of the way in which we live. One of my initiatives is the announcement of a review of the national planning guidance system, so that sustainable development will be at the heart of our objectives. We are also about to consult on the building control technical standards for conservation of fuel and power. Energy efficiency issues are key to sustainable development and the building control system represents a practical way in which to address those issues.
The Executive's report on social justice included targets and milestones and put our commitment to sustainable development well to the fore. Sustainable development has the power to deliver benefits to people who are socially excluded— benefits such as warmer homes, homes that are cheaper to heat, cleaner local environments and better public transport.
In the programme for government, we said that we would work with people to develop greater understanding of and involvement in sustainable development. We will use all available channels, such as the civic forum, community councils, local authorities and the Local Agenda 21 process, in order to reach deep into Scottish life and to enable people outwith our Parliament to become involved in the discussions.
I commend the SNP's sensible amendment—I have considerable sympathy with its main thrust and tone. In a sense, it is symbolic that I am able to agree with so much of it. However, I want to say a few words to explain the Executive's perspective and why we do not support the amendment.
We have a targeted approach. We have adopted milestones and are embedding the monitoring process. However, I do not think that sustainable development should exist in a vacuum, separated from other policy—it must be embedded in mainstream policy if we are to make real, radical shifts. We have good strategies in place on a range of issues, such as social inclusion, air quality, the national waste strategy, transport and the voluntary sector—and there will be more such strategies. Each of those strategies must deliver sustainable development and must reflect our key concerns about it.
The establishment of a super-strategy, above all those other strategies, on sustainable development is not the right way forward, as it would separate us from the radical shift that we must make. At this stage, we should reject that approach. However, I agree with many of the other points that the amendment raises, such as on analysis, obligations, awareness and developing mechanisms and targets. I say that in a constructive way but—I do not think that consensus means that we must agree 100 per cent—I wish to oppose the amendment for the reason that I have outlined.
I see the Presiding Officer instructing me to wind up—I shall begin to do so.
We are beginning to make sustainable development a reality, both in the Parliament and in the Executive. We have begun to ensure that Victoria Quay meets high environmental standards. The vehicles that we use in the Scottish Executive are dual fuelled, which brings pollution benefits. Every letter that we write contains a declared environmental profile.
The Parliament must also make the change; it must take sustainable development on board. It is important that each committee also does that— just as the Executive must address sustainable development, so each committee must make it a theme of the scrutiny process. The advisory group on sustainable development asked both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to take a lead.
Sustainable development is about striking a balance and taking decisions that the next generation will be able to live with. We must put into practice that laudable objective. A commitment to sustainable development will place us among the more advanced Parliaments of the world. The opportunity is open to us—we must grasp it. I commend the Executive motion to the Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament places sustainable development at the core of its work and commends the Scottish Executive for its commitment to integrate the principles of sustainable development into all Government policies for the benefits it brings to the people of Scotland, now and in the future.
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."
I thought at times during Kenny MacAskill's speech that I had strayed into time for reflection or thought for the day. In his generally consensual and constructive mode, he says much with which I agree; we do not intend to vote against either Kenny's amendment or the motion. The tone of self-congratulation in the motion jarred a little, but the principal thrust of our amendment, which, the minister will note, recycles her words substantially, is to strike a note on planning and development.
There was much excitement before the establishment of this Parliament about what it might mean for planning. Planning professionals and organisations had great expectations. I do not suggest that those expectations cannot be fulfilled, but I point out that we have not yet had a debate on planning—we have not had an opportunity to discuss whether and to what extent the Executive intends to change the approach to planning. Planning was mentioned only briefly in the minister's speech today, and I hope that she will soon communicate the general thrust of the decisions that she will make in the current round of planning decisions.
We can all share a belief in the concept of sustainability. As the minister said, that concept was first publicised by the Brundtland report, was built into the Rio declaration in 1992 and has been a recurring theme of international gatherings and agreements since then. Since the early 1990s, our planning guidelines and advice notices have been systematically amended to take into account the essential mission of sustainability.
We do not think that there is any conflict between economic development and sustainability. Sustainability is a measurement by which economic development proposals might be judged, shaped or moulded. We are concerned that, in her approach to new planning policy, the minister should continue to reflect on the need to make land available for essential purposes. One of the successes of planning in the past decade and more has been the extent to which it has been possible to recycle brownfield land. We all share that objective, but there are occasions when recycled, brownfield sites cannot be found—for example for town-centre retailing, house building or economic development. It is important that we continue to have a commitment when necessary to use greenfield sites, taking sustainability as the criterion to select the sites. It is also important that we measure and mitigate the environmental disadvantages and establish controls and conditions that balance development with sustainability.
Even in an economy that is considerably less heated than that of the south-east of the United Kingdom, there is urban cramming in many towns and cities in Scotland and tremendous pressure for development on every available scrap of land. We hear of land exchanging at prices that most of us find unbelievable—I have heard, anecdotally, of a site in Edinburgh selling for £6 million per acre. That is a serious distortion in our economy; it suggests the need for sensible development policies that will make land available for essential needs.
The City of Edinburgh Council's strategy of concentrating its development on brownfield sites but looking at a plan-led approach to releasing greenfield land in the south-east wedge is one that we should commend to all local authorities. When it is necessary to use greenfield or green-belt sites, that should be plan led and have built into it the transport criteria, such as the multi-modal corridors, that the Minister for Transport and the Environment has talked about on other occasions.
Many issues in addition to planning are relevant to this debate. We have had brief opportunities in Parliament to quiz the minister on statements she has made on air quality, waste management, the strategy for investment in water and the treatment of waste materials. We have not yet had a discussion on open-cast coal, quarrying or other minerals issues, but they are very significant for the environment. I hope that we will have the opportunity for a substantial exchange on all those interconnecting issues.
I emphasise that my amendment is lodged not in a disputatious tone, but to show that we accept and champion the principle of sustainability and welcome the ministerial group that the minister has established. I suggest that the Executive might wish to establish some openness by making the minutes or reports of the group's meetings available so that we all know where the debate is going.
It is my intention to communicate the thrust of what we are discussing in the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland. I am looking at how we might do that through the Executive's website.
I thank the minister for that very positive statement, which allows us to conclude in a tone of considerable, broad agreement. We have only one, limited planet and we must pass it on to those who will come after us in as good shape as we can. In taking from it what we need, we must do the best that we can to minimise what
we take and to repair the damage of the past. In moving my amendment, I indicate an intention not to vote against the motion at decision time.
I move amendment S1M-486.2, to leave out from "places" to end and insert:
"approves the Scottish Executive's commitment to integrate the principles of sustainable development into all government policies for the benefits it brings to the people of Scotland, now and in the future, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to ensure that land and other resources will be made available for the economic development of Scotland."
Today I have found out two things—that rhetoric can be at different levels and that it can be both consensual and aggressive. The contrast between the morning and the afternoon has been interesting.
I welcome what the Minister for Transport and the Environment said and much of what Kenny MacAskill and Murray Tosh said—much of their rhetoric was important in setting the tone of how the Parliament will deal with this issue. The Liberal Democrats welcome the commitment to and continued support for sustainable development and stronger environmental policies that were secured in the partnership agreement. The Scottish Executive is doing more for the environment than previous Administrations have done, but we must not be complacent. The Conservative and SNP spokesmen have illustrated how much more we need to do. In terms of giving a push to what the Executive is doing, that is important.
The key requirements for the environment are strategic environmental assessment and freedom of information. Those issues underpin much of what has been said today, particularly Murray Tosh's request for the minutes of the ministerial working group.
It has been difficult to define sustainable development; indeed, it may be foolish even to begin to try. I share the view of Scottish Environment Link when it argues that sustainability is a concept that policy makers should understand rather than waste time in attempting to define. I know that Sylvia Jackson is conducting a study on behalf of the European Committee into the European Community's sixth environmental action plan. That is the sort of practical work that I think will help this Parliament's understanding of the area.
The question that we must pose is: "Is Scotland sustainable?" Before today's debate, I read the 1996 study carried out by Friends of the Earth and funded jointly by the Scottish Office. It estimated that Scotland would have to cut its use of non
renewable resources by 25 per cent within a decade. It suggested that we needed to address Scotland's continued reliance on fossil fuels, a point that Kenny MacAskill made—his point about renewables was also important.
As the report stated, we produce less than 10 per cent of our energy from renewable resources, whereas Denmark aims to get 100 per cent of its power from such sources by 2030. It also suggested that we needed to tackle the rate of traffic growth, which is one of the highest in Europe. Those are important themes, which encapsulate the difficulty of achieving the balance that sustainable development brings.
I have two practical points about renewables. I recently visited Scottish and Southern Energy in Perth—something that we in the Highlands and Islands still call the Hydro. The people whom I spoke to there said that an impediment to developing renewables is that, in those parts of Scotland where it is possible to generate wind and wave power, it is not possible to use the transmission capacity because that capacity simply does not exist. The electricity regulator's drive for cheaper power does not help generating companies to invest in increased capacity, nor does the regulator allow generators to create spare capacity in anticipation of renewable development. I think that the Executive has a role in changing that situation, and I urge the minister to consider that point in winding up.
Another difficulty is that the consumer may not be interested in green power; he or she wants cheap power. There is an added complication for environmentalists, who may oppose the development of renewable options such as wind farms in national scenic areas. There are competing demands and we must all be aware of them and try to work out the problems. The programme for government document, published last September, stated that the minister was committed to providing locational guidance on renewable energy development by the summer of 2000. That will be an important aspect of the debate.
My second point about renewables is this: The Herald reported on Monday that the value of glass from bottle banks is dropping to zero because the major company involved in recycling glass has found that the bottom has fallen out of the market, as the price of new glass is falling all the time. Local authorities face increasing difficulties because of such factors.
The progress that the Scottish Executive is making is important. When he winds up today, I would like the minister to outline the steps that have been taken to introduce the strategic environmental assessment in Scotland and what progress has been made. Parliament must strike a
practical balance between the increases that are needed in water quality and water charges for consumers, between increased power from renewables and the cost of electricity for consumers, and, as Robin Harper has said, between growing more organic food to satisfy consumer demand and the need for cheaper food. We must all toy with those balances and, irrespective of political boundaries, we must wrestle with those choices.
I support the minister. One of the difficulties that I had in preparing for this debate was that the minister is making such rapid progress on all these issues that it is difficult to sort out from all the documents that we have been given which issues she has made progress on and which are still waiting to be done.
The Transport and the Environment Committee covers this part of the Parliament's work. Murray Tosh and Tavish Scott have illustrated that there is a great deal of consensus, enthusiasm and commitment on that committee. I am not even too far apart from Kenny MacAskill on many of the issues, except when he talks about the Kyoto agreement, because he never says how he will fund the commitments to that agreement or what the budgets will be.
In addition, the SNP manifesto for the election campaign had a commitment to the fuel duty escalator. The SNP was counting on that revenue to fund many of its commitments, yet when it produced a budget it forgot to include the escalator in it. That smacks of a lack of consistency and, although it may be unkind to say so, a degree of amateurism. The SNP should think about how it will present budgets in future, and how it will cost its commitments.
Can Helen Eadie assure this chamber that fuel prices will not escalate in next month's budget? We may have to face a fuel duty escalator with a different name, given that the Deputy Prime Minister at Westminster talked about the hypothecation of money that might be raised from increased fuel prices. Is Helen Eadie saying that the fuel duty escalator, in some form or other, is not coming next month?
We have already announced modifications to the fuel duty escalator, as Kenny MacAskill knows. It will continue to be used to develop public transport, which is vitally important, as the minister mentioned. We have said that clearly, and I think that Tavish Scott and Murray Tosh demonstrated that in their speeches.
I am not sure exactly what Murray Tosh's amendment does. Our positions are not far apart.
Perhaps he would provide clarification.
Coming to a debate on sustainability when we had heard nothing from the minister on planning issues and other issues related to development, it was impossible to predict what she was going to say. Sustainability means many things to many people. Some adopt a much more intensely environmental approach than the relatively pragmatic approach that the minister has demonstrated to date. I wanted to make a mark for continuing economic development.
Thank you.
The magnitude of the work that we have ahead of us is such that, despite the best will of all of us, we have to commit to it absolutely, because news bulletins tell us about disasters on a daily basis, and inform us that we have to act globally. Scientists are telling us that the disasters stem from rising global temperatures, leading to increased rainfall, particularly in the west, and sea level rises. It is virtually certain that there will be more storms. The biggest challenge that ministers and parliamentarians face is that of increasing the public's awareness of these issues.
In the long term, if we are to make a difference, it will mean changes to our lifestyles but, in the short term, we must introduce many measures, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That will require changes to the way in which we travel and how we consume energy. This is a big debate. We have to persuade people and get them to understand that this is not just about forcing people on to public transport. Big issues have to be talked about. In the early 1970s, work was done to ensure that we mitigated the worst disasters in the North sea oil industry. We can learn lessons from that.
I will conclude by making a plea for my constituents in Fife and Dunfermline East, where we have the legacy of the coal mines. The minister has talked about priorities such as social inclusion and joined-up government. I hope that when she addresses those priorities, she will give special consideration to the problems that my constituents face due to subsidence problems and the way in which the environment has been left.
The Government development strategy document states that
"the overall aim of all our policies for rural Scotland is to foster and enable the sustainable development of rural communities."
I am sure that all of rural Scotland hopes that the Executive will heed this advice soon.
Consider the situation in rural Scotland today.
Rural poverty is now a reality. Provisional farm income figures for 1999, published just four days ago, show that incomes have fallen, on average, by another 22 per cent to £3,600, which underlines the continuing crisis engulfing the whole of Scottish agriculture. Since agriculture remains the key industry in Scotland, it is still an important factor in the economic viability of rural communities.
Social exclusion is a rural problem. Studies show that disadvantage is widespread in rural Scotland and excluded groups form a large part of the rural and islands population. Rural disadvantage is compounded by isolation, lack of choice, lack of access to services and the higher costs of essentials. We are talking about the threat to rural infrastructure, the closing down of rural sub-post offices, garages and small shops, the lack of child care, the price of petrol and the price of food.
Compounding the problem is the lack of accurate measures of rural disadvantage, which has remained an issue without resolution for years, and which denies many communities much- needed access to funding. That suggests that the Government's policies are clearly not fostering and enabling the sustainable development of rural Scotland. I suggest that its policies are actively inhibiting the sustainable development of rural Scotland and are contributing to rural decline.
Across Scotland farmers and crofters are being called upon to contribute to the delivery of UK, and local, biodiversity action plan objectives. They cannot do that without adequate support. The rural development regulation of the Agenda 2000 common agricultural policy reforms provides the Scottish Executive with the opportunity to increase spending on agri-environment schemes, to provide essential support for farmers and crofters who farm in an environmentally sensitive way.
I call upon the Government to put into practice some of its alleged commitment to rural Scotland: to secure more and better-quality job opportunities and greater prosperity for rural Scotland; to improve the quality and availability of services and housing to enable local communities to retain population and expand the social and cultural infrastructure; and to safeguard, and where possible enhance, the natural heritage and environment of rural Scotland.
It is a great shame that there are not more people here for the first debate on sustainability in this Parliament.
I welcome the tone and content of Sarah Boyack's presentation. Members will not be surprised that I have certain reservations. I welcome the inclusion of Kevin Dunion, but I hope that he takes a seat near the door of the tent. Sarah Boyack will get the allusion.
I have recently picked up a book—or a summary of it—co-authored by Amory Lovins, the guru of environmental development in the United States. It is possibly one of the most important books since "Das Kapital" and it has a very different way of solving the world's problems, which members will be glad to hear. It is a pity that Tommy Sheridan is not here.
The authors say that the central problem is that we treat the natural world, our atmosphere, rivers, seas, forests, countryside, topsoil and biodiversity as if those were valueless commodities. Because we do not have to pay for natural resources, they are apparently free to be used up. The result is that they are being used up, destroyed or polluted at an alarming rate. I will not depress members with the figures, with which many members will be familiar. This is also the central message of the British Government panel on sustainable development, which published its sixth and final report yesterday. That was very good work from Sir Crispin Tickell.
The authors of "Natural Capitalism" give four principles that we could adopt now. First, we could use scarce resources with radically greater productivity. An example is given of a firm that, by providing services rather than objects, has cut its use of resources by 93 per cent. Production could be shifted into closed loops, in which there is no waste or pollution. As part of a continuous service to their customers, businesses could change from not only selling products to also providing them. We could act to reinvest in restoring, sustaining and expanding the stock of natural capital on which we depend.
I was sad to observe that, apart from Irene McGugan, I am the first person in the debate to mention biodiversity. I underline my support for much of what Irene has said.
Every time it arises, I would like to challenge the old canard that organic farming cannot be productively competitive. When a farmer converts to organic farming, there is a 20 per cent drop in productivity. However, in a 20-year experiment in the United States, which compared organic farming with conventional farming, side by side, on the same pieces of land, the productivity of five crops grown on the organically farmed land was found to be equal to that of the same crops grown using conventional methods.
Until the new national planning policy guidelines have been introduced, I look forward to defending Edinburgh and Lothian green belts against Murray Tosh's philosophy. We need to overhaul the planning system. It may be that we will need a
new definition of green belts and other sites that need protection. Until that time, I can assure those people to whom I have hitherto given my support in this area that they will continue to receive it.
I am sad that Sarah Boyack was unable to call in the A701 for further discussion. The commitment to cross-cutting is admirable, but how powerful is the ministerial group? Can it overrule? Can it initiate? Can it demand evidence or action? How many members of that group are here at this moment?
Jim Wallace has defined sustainability as economic growth, social development and environmental protection—that gives me cause for concern. The environment was left very much until last in that definition, while the end of the commitment to straight economic growth was clearly placed in the conditional tense.
We have to look beyond the borders of our small country. If we are to have a fair and equal world, the west needs to reduce its consumption of the world's resources by up to 90 per cent. At the moment, one billion people live in abject poverty. The message is that a reduction can be achieved. We can make choices that can start to tip economic and social outcomes in a positive direction. It is beginning to happen, because it is a necessity, it is possible and it is practical.
I commend Kenny MacAskill's comments on targeting. We must have targets, because if we do not achieve actual reductions in the consumption of fuel or in the amount of traffic in this country, or a considerable increase in the amount of land that is farmed organically, we will be nowhere near being able to live with the rest of the world with a clear conscience.
If sustainable development began to rank as a key issue in the late 1990s, it is clear that, as we go into the new millennium, global survival depends on each one of us taking sustainability seriously. Friends of the Earth sees sustainable development in terms of a fairer share of resources, both at home and abroad. It is clear that business as usual will not achieve sustainable development. As stated previously, we require a balance between environmental, social and economic factors. Friends of the Earth put it clearly:
"A sustainable society should be in harmony with nature, socially inclusive and prosperous."
In 1992, the United Nations-sponsored Earth summit in Rio called upon the international community to develop new policies, as outlined in Agenda 21, to take our society towards a sustainable pattern of development. In response, the European Community produced the fifth environmental action programme.
Central to the programme was the recognition that environmental legislation in itself is not sufficient to improve the environment. Developments in other areas, such as transport, energy, industry, urban planning, agriculture and fisheries, create their own environmental problems. As a result, much of the debate is now focusing on how it is possible to take account of environmental objectives across a wide range of economic activities, and the conflicts, trade-offs and tensions that that creates. We need to consider how to mainstream environmental concerns across all sectors of economic activity.
The European Commission has published a consultation document on the next stage of the process, which will result in the sixth environmental action programme. Today, between 6 pm and 8 pm, there will be an internet chat with Margot Wallström, the European Commissioner for the Environment, who asks the question, what sort of environment do we want for Europe? The European Committee of the Scottish Parliament is involved in the process and will take an active part in contributing to the sixth environmental action programme. In addition, the committee will take a proactive stance in making the action programme a reality in the context of the Scottish Parliament.
It is pleasing to see that three members of the European Committee are attending the debate. I would welcome further discussion with Robin Harper about the biodiversity issues that he raised.
At a local level, in my constituency, a recent meeting of the Stirling assembly examined the topics of sustainability, resources and waste. No shortage of ideas emerged, from Friends of the Earth, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling Council and the citizens of Stirling constituency.
First is the need to consider long-term disposal options as alternatives to landfill, including composting schemes, segregated collections, material reclamation facilities and obtaining energy from waste.
Secondly, there is the need to establish effective co-ordination, both nationally and locally, between the various organisations. Locally, that might be co-ordination between neighbouring councils, the local enterprise companies, community groups, business and the waste management companies.
Thirdly, there is the need to address the cost issue, notably in terms of recycling processes. At the moment, it costs £18.75 per tonne to put waste in a landfill, including the landfill tax. That compares with an average cost of £33.50 per tonne for recycling. Furthermore, until the
necessary infrastructure is put in place, those with the recycling facilities can call the shots. It is not just a local issue; support will be needed from the Parliament.
Fourthly, and most important, we need to change the attitudes of the public. There must be massive investment in raising the awareness of sustainability among people of all ages.
There are many other things that I could have mentioned, such as sustainability and the national parks. Through my involvement in the European Committee, I will try hard to play an active part. It is up to each and every one of us to raise awareness about sustainable development and be active in doing something about it.
As I came in, I picked up the little booklet "Scotland the sustainable?" and one item caught my eye:
"If sustainable development is so sensible, why is more of it not happening?"
We start with a question. I am sure that many people have their own suggestions as to why more is not happening. Yesterday, we had an interesting debate, which was initiated by my colleague Jamie Stone. We heard about the economic disadvantages being experienced in the far north, due to the lack of an adequate and safe road system. We cannot promote or sustain any meaningful development unless we have an effective and appropriate roads system.
Highland Council, which covers an area the size of Wales, estimates that it would require an investment of £100 million to improve its roads and bridges to meet the current European standards. That is not small change, and it illustrates the difficulties that we have in promoting—never mind trying to sustain— development of any sort.
The capital of the Highlands, Inverness, continues to develop at an alarming and remarkable pace. It is considered to be the fastest growing town in Europe. That is quite a distinction and one that I am pleased to acknowledge. I am sure that many people in the Highlands would be proud to be associated with that.
However, that development would not have gone on at the pace that it has—in fact, I do not think that it would have started—had we not, over the past 25 years, invested in the A9 and upgraded it from Perth to Inverness. That has made a remarkable difference, not only to the travelling public but to those who want to develop in Inverness, in the north and around the Moray firth basin. More significantly, it has attracted international developers, which has helped to sustain the economy of the Highlands.
We need now to extend our vision beyond that horizon. We need to look north and west of Inverness. Yesterday, we heard about the difficulties in the far north; the same problems arise in the west. Surprisingly, we have overcome many of the main hurdles that could have prevented a similar sort of extension to our road system. We built a bridge at Kessock. We also built a bridge across the Cromarty firth and another across the Dornoch firth. I wonder why we stopped there, but that was the thinking at the time. Jamie Stone would have liked the improvements to have continued up to the far north. Those are magnificent bridges, with two or four lanes. Incidentally, they are all toll free. I wonder why that should be.
I suggest that any development, if it is to be sustainable, requires a basic infrastructure to help it to become established and to grow. The most essential element of that infrastructure is an appropriate and well-engineered road system. Without that, we cannot sustain the developments that we hope to attract to our rural economies.
I am delighted to contribute to this important debate, which I hope—unlike many debates on subjects such as sustainable development and other environmental matters— will not just have warm words, but will lead to lots of practical action to back up those words. I also hope that we can make a difference in this Parliament.
When elected eight or nine months ago, I knew that this job would involve a lot of paperwork. I lodged a parliamentary question asking when recycling facilities would be made available to MSPs. We got the recycling bins only this week. It took eight months for that particular measure to be delivered. I hope that we can improve on that.
I inquired into why we had only just received the recycling bins and I gather that the contract had to go out to tender. I do not know whether Mr Lochhead was able to find any other reason.
Thank you for that intervention. It says quite a lot about the Government's policy.
This country has an abundance of natural resources, and hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on them. No country has a greater interest in sustainability than Scotland. Yet, down the decades, Westminster has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to put the environment on
the agenda. Measures that are now in place have usually come from the United Nations or from Europe. Westminster has shown little initiative.
The Scottish Parliament has to show initiative and to show that we can make a difference. Let us hope that we can offer the vision and determination that has been lacking in the past. The Scottish National party will, of course, support genuine effort from the Executive in connection with sustainability.
Does Mr Lochhead think that there was a problem with Westminster because it is in London, or because of the political priorities of the Government at the time?
Well, both. I am sure that the minister will not be surprised to know that I am about to come on to the difficulty with Westminster.
Although the SNP will support genuine efforts to achieve a sustainable Scotland, we are very concerned about the constraints on the Parliament's ability to meet that aim. The fifth point in the 10 action points outlined in "Scotland the sustainable?" mentions being part of the international dimension of sustainable development. It is a pity that, because Scotland is not independent, we cannot play a global role, not only to achieve a sustainable Scotland, UK or Europe, but to contribute to the wider world.
Will Richard Lochhead give way?
No, I have already taken two interventions. Surely it would be much more productive and valuable for Scotland to have a seat at the United Nations and to play a full role in UN organisations and in the European Union, which is far more concerned about environmental policy than the UK Government.
The seventh of the 10 action points in the document concerns energy. The opening line in the section on energy states:
"Energy policy is a UK matter. On the face of it therefore, there is little for the Scottish Parliament to do."
This Parliament needs control over energy policy to deliver a sustainable Scotland. Westminster's record on oil and gas shows that it has no interest in sustainable energy resources. For decades, the Westminster policy has been, "Get the oil out as quickly as possible."
The theme of the Government's documents is that, to deliver sustainability, we need to change attitudes in Scotland and Scottish society. However, how can we eradicate poverty when expenditure decisions and fiscal policy are decided in London? How can we tackle fuel poverty when energy policy and social security policy are also decided in London? We do not even have our own representation in Europe to create a sustainable fishing policy. We would have much more influence than we do at present if we had our own member status in the EU.
Of course, Westminster keeps its grubby hands on Scotland's financial resources. Local government is expected to deliver local sustainability through Agenda 21 and other measures. However, local government is busy dealing with financial crisis after financial crisis. How on earth is it supposed to find the time for long-term thinking about and planning for sustainability?
I am sure that the well-used phrase "Think globally, act locally" has been mentioned several times. I can assure the Executive that the SNP wants Scotland to act globally, but that can happen only with independence. Furthermore, we want control of our own resources so that Scotland can act locally as well.
Before I call Maureen Macmillan, I should tell Parliament that recycling is a matter for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and that the Presiding Officer will respond by letter to members who have raised points on the issue. I hope that that is helpful.
I thank John Farquhar Munro for his speech on transport in the Highlands. Perhaps we in the Highlands and Islands have a different perspective on sustainable development from that of members from other areas of Scotland.
In the Highlands, we have inherited a desert landscape over much of our landmass, denuded of trees by man and denuded of people by remorseless landlords and harsh economic circumstances. However, that is not to say that we do not appreciate the beauty and grandeur of the landscape, the unique wildlife on our doorstep and its commercial value to our tourism industry.
We should not just conserve but regenerate the natural environment that makes the Highlands and Islands unique, and we should do so in such a way that it has a positive economic impact. For example, if we plant new forests that properly balance the proportion of native trees to commercial species such as Sitka spruce, woodland regeneration can provide a variety of forest-based industries as well as enhance tourism potential. Environmental tourism has potential for real growth. Woodland walking and wildlife excursions could be promoted more strongly by the area tourist boards and the Scottish Tourist Board.
However, it is crucial that the human population of the Highlands and Islands is conserved, restored and regenerated. Highland people have been one of the most endangered species in this country, to which the ruined croft houses from Mull to Sutherland are testimony. In the not too distant past, Highland people have even felt beleaguered by environmentalists, who seemed to wish to preserve the Highlands in sugar and to see any development only in terms of how wildlife would be affected. Consideration of how people might raise their standard of living seemed to get lost.
For example, it did not help Highland confidence to know that with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds having more members than there were people living in the Highlands and Islands, environmental organisations seemed to have greater influence on the Government than highlanders.
I am glad to say that there is now much more co-operation and understanding between environmental organisations and local people, but areas of tension still exist, such as the management of the geese on Islay and the worry of some crofters and farmers over the environmental requirements for European funding. We must not alienate crofters and farmers but, as Irene McGugan said, we must support them as they embrace the environmental dimension of land use.
The scope for sustainable development will be enhanced by the coming land reform legislation. Highland people are very conscious of their environment—one of the fiercest debates at present in the inner Moray firth is over waste disposal, and environmental bodies in Argyll and Lochaber are very concerned about recycling.
Does Maureen Macmillan agree that it is astonishing that the Executive said that the land reform bill had nothing to do with the environment? Does she think that the bill should, perhaps, have something to do with the environment?
I am talking about sustainable development. When communities can own their own land, we will see such development.
We are looking for balance. Debates in the past have been about urban regeneration versus rural conservation, but rural areas include people, who are a vital economic resource and should not be overlooked. In rural areas, we can trade on our unique environment, but if we depend on primary industries—important as they are—we will not thrive. We must look at ways of using our environment to attract more business and industry, whether that industry be traditional or new, information technology-based.
We need diversification strategies to cope with downturns such as the rundown of BARMAC. I believe that Highlands and Islands Enterprise is facing up to that challenge extremely well. We need to generate a broad economic base and a work force that is confident of its transferable skills.
The Highlands and Islands continue to see real growth. Inward investment has created 1,275 jobs from 18 projects. As John Munro said, Inverness is the fastest-growing town in Europe and is expanding by the minute. However, while there has been progress, towns such as Campbeltown and Wick, at opposite ends of the region, struggle to hold on to present employees or attract new ones, because of geographical barriers.
As Sarah Boyack said, sustainable development encompasses transport. In the Highlands, car dependency is a real issue. People and families on low incomes need to be given practical, cheaper alternatives that provide easier access to work, better access to urban centres and, most of all, choice to people in rural areas.
The debate has been very welcome, and many members have made good, fundamental points. I was pleased to hear that the minister's priorities will be to cut waste, reduce energy use and make travel more sustainable.
Revising building standards is a key way in which to improve the energy efficiency of housing. Even some newly built homes in Scotland have a poor national home energy rating and it is right that, for the present housing stock, we target the privately rented sector where the biggest gains can be made, not only in terms of energy conservation, but in improvements to health and to general levels of comfort. The phenomenon of excess winter deaths is unknown in Scandinavia, where the winter climate is harsher than ours but, critically, insulation and building regulations have been to a much better standard for many years.
We did not hear much about Agenda 21 until Richard Lochhead mentioned it. In my view, Agenda 21 needs a stimulus from the Executive. We need more community involvement and attention to local strategies, and positive moves to integrate them into mainstream policies.
I refer to a particular part of the economy, and to waste. The minister will know of my interest in a forecasting framework for aggregates; national planning policy guideline 4 states that increased use of secondary aggregates in construction is sound environmental practice. Perhaps the minister can tell us what stage research on current levels of recycling has reached, and whether the widely held view that there is a need for the
Executive to set targets for the use of secondary aggregates and construction waste has been upheld within that research.
I am sure that the member would be as thrilled as I was on a recent visit to Shetland to see the incinerator programme there. All waste from Shetland and most of the waste from Orkney is used to produce heat. What is left is also usable for road wear. Does he agree that other parts of the Highlands and Islands should follow the Shetland example?
I agree with the member. More could also be done to use recycled building waste in construction.
I welcome the minister's comments on sustainable travel. She will not be surprised if I commend to her a railway for the Borders to reduce our dependency on cars and cut congestion in Edinburgh.
We often struggle to find adequate resources for energy conservation. Standards of service schemes in the energy industry are a start, but they tend to stand alone and are not linked to other Scottish programmes.
Resources can be raised through what we pay for our energy, excluding petrol. Between 1990 and 1998, industrial energy prices in real terms fell by 36 per cent for coal, 43 per cent for gas, 24 per cent for electricity and 23 per cent for heavy fuel oil.
In the same period, in the domestic sector, prices in real terms including VAT fell by 16.5 per cent for gas, 15 per cent for electricity, 4.5 per cent for coal and 37.5 per cent for heating oils. Even if a small part of those price decreases had been held back and used for energy conservation schemes, we could have spent millions more on energy conservation. I hope that Westminster will give the matter serious consideration, so that, if fuel prices fall further, some—though not necessarily all—of the savings will be devoted to energy conservation measures. Falling energy prices give stimulus to those who say, "Energy costs are falling, so I need not use energy as carefully as I used to."
The minister mentioned a number of the measures that the Scottish Executive has introduced to cut waste and energy use. The public sector has been successful. Since 1970, energy use in the public sector has decreased by 6 per cent. However, in the same period, energy use by commercial and other services has risen by 48 per cent. We must invite industry to consider how it will use energy more carefully in the years to come.
I had the pleasure of being the inaugural chairman of the Association of Scottish Community Councils. One of the first things that we managed to do, in consultation with a certain Secretary of State for Scotland—who, I tell Richard Lochhead, was a Conservative—was to consider how best we could serve Scotland's needs. That is not a new phrase.
We got funding to disseminate information on Agenda 21 to all the community councils and, through them, to schools throughout Scotland, which gave the debate a real kick start. There was no political slant, no strings and no payback, except for the people of Scotland. It is a shame that people take swipes at others without looking at how things work on the ground. All Governments from time to time do things without claiming the credit.
I appreciated the minister's approach to today's debate. We, too, believe in holistic decision making, which Kenny MacAskill and Tavish Scott mentioned. It is important to understand that we must create a dynamic balance in Scotland. Various members have illustrated the need for a balance that is always on the move. I was particularly taken by the comments of Tavish Scott, who was the first to mention balance. To achieve sustainable development, it is vital to create a balance between the long-term security of our environment and the economic stability of Scotland's communities. That is a delicate road to travel.
That will not be an easy task, and I would suggest, before I knock any brownie points off anyone else, that we ought to be letting the people of Scotland know that the Scottish Parliament is a grown-up body that will take sustainable development on board, and which will work on a cross-party basis to the benefit of the balance that I have talked about. The differences that will emerge will be in the methods of delivery and possibly in prioritisation.
I like some of the vision of the Minister for Transport and the Environment, but I would like her to put some more flesh on the bones to achieve more positive, constructive debate on the subject.
To be a little nit-picking, I was disappointed today to read the Cabinet Office report to the Prime Minister, "Sharing the Nation's Prosperity: Variation in Economic and Social Conditions Across the UK". Scotland warrants a page. That is very green: it has not used up too many trees to get a page in that voluminous document. I find it unfortunate, however, that there is no mention of sustainable development. The Executive has
obviously had a major input into the page.
Can Mr Davidson confirm that there was no reference whatever to the environment in the Conservative party manifesto?
If Helen Eadie is referring to the Scottish manifesto, it talked about a sustainable economy. The word sustainable was in there, and it means, exactly as I have described, the dynamic balance that we have been discussing. If we want to put extra words in, I am afraid that that will cost a few more trees.
I was surprised that the minister also mentioned national parks. I have yet to be convinced, along with many people who live in certain parts of Scotland that are threatened with those beasts, that they will aid sustainability. I ask the minister to ensure urgently that her department takes heed of the sustainability requirements of the communities that live within the two proposed park areas. People from those two communities have written to me regularly; I received something in the post today from the Cairngorm area, again requiring urgent input, because other issues are at stake apart from environmental ones.
Kenny MacAskill's comments were pragmatic, and I congratulate him. He must have taken a Valium or something since this morning. I was surprised at one comment that he made, that he did not want a mandatory policy. He was glowing, however, about the fact that the Netherlands has such a policy in its constitution. Mr MacAskill will have to define what he meant by not having a mandatory policy.
My colleague Mr Tosh talked about the conflict—or lack of conflict—between sensible planning and economic stability. The minister addressed that in part, but we need to examine developments in the national planning policy guidelines more carefully. I hope that the minister will provide us with more information on that as she promises, and that Robin Harper will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on that.
I also say to Robin that organic farming is a wonderful beast—I am a low-input farmer myself—but if we produce everything that way, the premium will go and the industry will collapse.
While sustainability is acceptable as a principle in environmental terms, we have to apply the word sustainable to Scotland's economy and to its ability to provide sustainable employment.
As I said before, we need a dynamic balance; we need carrots, not sticks, and I hope that the Parliament will continue to approach this serious subject in a consensual way.
There is obviously a broad consensus on the need for sustainable development, so I will not recycle all the platitudes. Instead, I will use my time to focus on an element of sustainable development that has been mentioned only in passing, although it has a direct impact on all consumers in our society: housing.
My colleague, Kenny MacAskill, who has been much quoted this afternoon, is noted in the Transport and the Environment Committee for citing European examples to inform the debate. I will take that liberty this afternoon. The Scandinavian countries, which can be said to have climatic conditions comparable to those of Scotland, have sustainable approaches to housing development that are streets ahead of ours. Norway, Sweden and Denmark have strategies for energy efficiency, and sustainable approaches are taken in all parts of the community.
In Scandinavia, there is a general philosophy of sustainable development. Sadly, in our country, as Sylvia Jackson noted, there is as yet no such commonly held philosophy. That is why I particularly welcome the minister's inclusion of an education representative on her panel.
Housing and community building have suffered for too long from compromise between quality expectation and supply cost. We must move on from that. I was delighted when, two weeks ago at a meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee, the minister gave a categorical assurance that the purpose of the next review of the building regulations this summer is to improve insulation standards and energy efficiency for residential properties in order to meet the climate requirements in Scotland, tackle fuel poverty problems and improve the level of environmental emissions. That is admirable and to be welcomed, and I have no reason to doubt the minister's sincerity.
However, if the Parliament is truly committed to sustainable development, we must look further than that and I suggest that the minister discuss with her colleagues more innovations. We could consider expanding and easing access to direct grant aid for improving the insulation standards of existing housing stock. We could be really innovative and provide take-up grants for the installation of solar water heaters and for the use of renewable energy technology. I make those suggestions in a spirit of co-operation. I am sure that no members will disagree with the basic principles.
However, now comes the rub: it will cost money. While it is true that taking a sustainable and ecological approach to housing need not lead to
increased costs, it is also true that our choices are driven by cost. We select the cheapest materials and the smallest spaces. I speak from many years of experience in housing development in urban and rural locations.
It is likely that a commitment to sustainable development in housing will lead to increased individual unit costs. We have to take that on board. Allowances must be granted, to increase cost limits and grant funding for social housing, to cover the relatively small extra investment in housing stock. Not long ago, the Minister for Communities pledged that a number of homes would be built in Scotland in the next three years and promised that the extension of the right to buy would not result in a decrease in the number of social housing units. I ask the Minister for Transport and the Environment to fight to ensure that her sincere desire to implement sustainable development standards for our housing stock is not compromised by budget constraints and the need to ensure another department's credibility. Scotland's housing provision has suffered for too long from short-sightedness and—as the minister said—we must look at the future, not just the present.
It is not all doom and gloom, however. There are examples of sustainably developed housing schemes. There is one in the east end of Glasgow, where the innovative energy and insulation standards have resulted in an annual heating and water heating bill of less than £100. That is fantastic. That is what we should be aiming at: a real opportunity to combat fuel poverty.
While the minister's motion, with its noble sentiments, cannot be opposed, it is essential that true commitment is shown through a detailed strategy with stated Scottish criteria. That will please Helen Eadie. I ask members to support the SNP amendment.
There have been 14 speeches in today's debate. I will do my best to deal with them in the five or six minutes that I am allowed. compliment the main contributors this afternoon. Reference has been made to the volume of this morning's debate—I was over at parliament headquarters and was still able to hear the debate between Murray Tosh and Kenny MacAskill. We have finished with the Murray and Kenny shout-in and we should now engage in an afternoon period of reflection about how we make sustainable development the heart of the work of the Parliament, the Executive and other agencies.
I agree with what Linda Fabiani said. Many areas were not touched on today, housing being one of them. One of the key challenges facing all of us in the Parliament is how we connect the changes that we want in housing to a sustainable approach to development. I know that many housing associations and local authorities across Scotland have done things that will encourage sustainable development. In my own constituency, through the local housing association, some good work has been carried out to promote sustainable development in housing.
I am winding up today because local government has a central role to play on this issue. One of the those who spoke this morning mentioned the time that it took to get a waste disposal bin to allow us, after eight months, finally to be able to dispose of paper waste. Rather than be pessimistic about that, I tried to shout across the chamber and say that from a small victory we can change the world. I hope that we can move on to more substantial issues.
Robin Harper mentioned two books—"Das Kapital" and another one. I confess that I have read neither. Perhaps I have read edited versions of one of the books, but I do not take them as the gospel truth—unlike his colleague, who is visibly not available this afternoon, for the debate.
Local government clearly has a role to play in the broad issue of sustainability. We are supportive of the work that is undertaken by local government as part of Local Agenda 21. As Euan Robson says, much of the work has to come from the local agenda rather than from the Parliament or the Executive, which might take a prescriptive view. Some of the most dynamic ideas have been pioneered through the commitment to LA21.
I have a list—which I do not have time to go through—of many authorities that have used the agenda as part of their corporate plans for local authority work over the next few years, and I commend those authorities. Not enough authorities are engaging in that, which is why the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has put together the sustainable action fund to work with agencies to deliver that change.
There are people in the gallery today from Forward Scotland, and I put on record my appreciation for the work that they have undertaken, for example, to develop sustainable investment for housing. Forward Scotland is engaging with other agencies, in particular with the East of Scotland Water Authority.
There is a broad consensus in the Parliament, and I touched on that when I mentioned the contributions of those who spoke earlier. We have an opportunity to implore and plead—Murray Tosh introduced biblical intonations this afternoon. One of the comments that was made was that there is
a lack of detail and a limit of aspirations. I want to summarise the best of members' comments before we conclude.
Sarah Boyack has made a strong commitment to renewable energy. We want to ensure that that will come before the Parliament again, in the near future, as we view it as a part of the process of change. We want to recognise that we are part of the European Community. One speech this afternoon seemed to suggest that all the good ideas came from elsewhere in Europe, not the UK. However, we can learn within the UK, as well as from Europe—not just from the Dutch, or, as some members in the recent past have felt, from the many contributions that Germany has offered to the issues of renewable energy and sustainable football development strategies. We can learn as much about that from south of Carlisle.
Tavish Scott touched on several issues that I want to address. We want to examine the work of Friends of the Earth, which was supported by the Scottish Office as it looked ahead to renewable energy issues. The fact that we have a key player such as Kevin Dunion—who has been involved in the process with such organisations in the past— strikes me as a positive endorsement of change.
Although I understand the concerns that Murray Tosh raised in the amendment that he put together, the amendment takes away the heart of the proposal that the Minister for Transport and the Environment put forward. Therefore, we cannot accept that amendment. Several members raised the issue of the role that the committees can play in developing an agenda for change on renewable energy and sustainable development.
There is enough available land in Scotland, if a strategic approach is taken. Many of our urban environments would benefit from brownfield developments, so there is no need for further encroachment into greenfield areas. We can deal with that locally. Sarah Boyack has also mentioned, in the past, that she wants to examine the planning and building regulations.
Several members mentioned poverty and sustainability in a rural environment. We should not address those fundamental issues only in this debate. I want to broaden the matter out—our social justice agenda is flexible and we will try to touch on those sustainable development issues in our national parks agenda. There are other areas with which we can concern ourselves.
I am conscious that I cannot touch on many points that have been raised because of the time, but they will be taken on board and the Executive will respond in writing to the members who raised them.
It is important to stress a philosophical point— we and Europe are interdependent. We should not address such issues independently as a state. Many EC countries now have the kind of relationship with central European Government that the Scottish Parliament has with the UK Government. Those countries have pioneered radical strategies. It is not necessarily a country's political structure that determines whether it can deal with sustainable development—political will determines how sustainable development is dealt with.
There is broad consensus in the Parliament on the issues and on the strategy that Sarah Boyack has brought together. I recognise that there is good will behind the amendments that have been lodged, but I ask members to reject them both. Through the strategic teams, the Executive wants to bring forward developments in regard to some of the issues that have been raised in members' speeches.
I commend the motion in the name of Sarah Boyack.