Sustainable Scotland
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-559, in the name of Robin Harper, on sustainable Scotland, and three amendments to the motion.
The Executive's partnership agreement states:
"We want a Scotland that delivers sustainable development; that puts environmental concerns at the heart of public policy and secures environmental justice for all of Scotland's communities."
That is a truly noble ambition, supported by strong pillars, but what does the Executive offer us? A thread.
Members must not misunderstand me: that thread represents the Executive's commitment, and my Green colleagues and I are delighted that the partnership agreement contains even a little green thread. We are delighted that the other parties incorporated more green rhetoric than ever before into their political manifestos, but—and that is a big but—words are not enough. If one good policy is undermined by another policy, we are no further forward and, occasionally, we might even be worse off.
Again and again, the Executive claims that its fence-sitting on tough decisions is dictated by the restrictions of responsible government. Those claims are increasingly being exposed as shorthand for business as usual. That is not good enough. Part of the Greens' job in the Parliament is to act as a conscience, to hold up green commitments to the clear light of day and to demand serious action. Our job is to outline key areas where the reality on the ground varies so widely from the stated public policy that the little green thread is in knots.
The partnership agreement makes a commitment to reach a target of
"40% of Scottish electricity generation … from renewable sources by 2020".
That commitment is made to address climate change and to meet our commitments under the Kyoto treaty. However, the partnership agreement contains no target for traffic reduction and is saddled with commitments to build more roads, expand airports and encourage air travel, all of which cause climate change. That is a policy contradiction.
Although the Executive supports renewable energy, it has still not ruled out nuclear power stations or waste-to-energy incinerators. What sort of signal does that send to potential investors in renewables? Meanwhile, the first wave machines could come on stream in Portugal, because renewables receive many times more investment there than is available in Scotland. That is another policy contradiction.
On food and health, the Executive has made commitments to local markets, organics and healthy eating. However, our Government is still sitting on the fence in relation to genetically modified crops. Without a GM-free Scotland, the Executive's positive commitments could be undone. In the debate that will follow this one, we will hear that GM threatens the future of both organic and conventional farming. That is another policy contradiction.
On reducing waste, there is a vague commitment to create significant opportunities for new products that are manufactured from waste—but it is just a commitment. However, the 1 per cent target—only 1 per cent—for the reduction in the amount of waste that we produce seems to have been abandoned. That is another policy contradiction.
At the root of the Executive's contradictory approach to sustainability is an obsession with economic growth as a sort of miracle driver for societal well-being. However, to judge progress on gross domestic product alone is to live in a fool's paradise. Even Tony Blair acknowledges that. He has said:
"focusing solely on economic growth risks ignoring the impact—both good and bad—on people and on the environment … Now … there is a growing realisation that real progress cannot be measured by money alone … But in the past … We have failed to see how our economy, our environment and our society are all one."
The crisis in the fishing industry is a sad testament to the illusion of the benefits of economic growth at any cost.
Some five years ago, the Executive committed to strategic environmental assessment, which was hailed—and we do not demur—as the most important tool to inform decision making. However, the Executive is only now taking action, to meet the deadline for avoiding legal action by the European Union. The minister has said that he will introduce primary legislation on strategic environmental assessment, which is welcome, but there is still no guarantee that it will cover existing strategies and agencies such as the new transport authority. The Executive is like a dinosaur at work: bang it on the head with a good idea and the tail twitches five years later.
So, what should we do about the green thread? Will we get it to pull all these things together? We need a sea change—a fundamental shift in approach and policy away from the inadequate pursuit of growth at any cost towards the goal of sustainability. An independent commission of the Centre for Scottish Public Policy, which includes Sarah Boyack, agrees with that. It says in a robust and clear report that was published this week that neither the Executive nor the Parliament takes the challenge of sustainable development seriously enough and that failing to meet that challenge would be cheating on our children, cheating on ourselves and cheating on our neighbours.
We need a truly green vision—not just a thread, but an entire cloth in which green threads join with one another to form a coherent pattern, each policy is considered in the context of others and there is truly joined-up thinking. To help to achieve that, the status of the Executive's sustainable development unit within government must be improved. We must have a sustainable development strategy and the Parliament should have a sustainable development committee to monitor progress.
We promised our voters that we would be both constructive and challenging in our role as parliamentarians. We are delighted that the coalition parties and others have adopted some of our language but we now ask them to adopt more of our vision. We acknowledge the Executive's apparent commitment to the environment and sustainable development, as outlined in the partnership agreement, and we will track its progress on those issues.
If we have a collective future, we will achieve it only if we grasp the opportunity that is presented by the Executive's start and if sustainability leads economic development, not the other way around.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Executive's intention of placing the environment and sustainable development at the heart of all of its policy making; notes, however, the policy contradictions, including those in A Partnership for a Better Scotland, which indicate that this goal is not likely to be achieved, and therefore calls on the Executive to integrate sustainable development within all of its policy making and organise government to achieve this end.
I am grateful to Robin Harper for acknowledging, at least, that the partnership agreement is full of noble ambition—indeed it is, and quite rightly so. The document was published at the outset of the Executive's term in government and it was right for us to set out a clear and high ambition. I am sorry that he has to be so niggly about the green thread and that he finds it somehow awkward or difficult. I would have expected him to be more generous, and I would have thought that even he might be keen to acknowledge a green thread that has 78 positive commitments on environmental matters.
Nevertheless, the green thread is there and, in speaking to my amendment, I want to make it clear that that green thread links together clear commitments on actions and policy, creating a clear framework within which the Executive will deliver on sustainable development rather than just talk about it. We have priorities and our emphasis is on resource use, energy and travel. We will measure our progress using the sustainable development indicators, many of which have clear targets.
More important, we are committed to action. Action is set out in the introduction to the partnership agreement, which contains the commitment to sustainable development that Robin Harper was kind enough to quote. I hope that he will quote it often. There is concern for sustainable development and also for environmental justice. Those are key priorities, not only for me as Minister for Environment and Rural Development but for every Executive minister and for every department.
Robin Harper mentioned the economy. Let us be clear that the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department must ensure that growth is sustainable. We must grow renewable energy industries—that is important in terms of what will fuel economic growth. We must assess our economic development policies against their impact on the targets that are set in our sustainable development indicators. It is not a question of having a laissez-faire approach to economic development. We will also return vacant and derelict land to productive use.
Will the minister explain exactly how trebling air traffic in Scotland is consistent with sustainable development?
The Greens should stop saying that the clock should suddenly be turned back and economic development stopped and that they will fly nowhere, travel nowhere and go nowhere and get themselves into the real world. They must understand that improving Scotland's links to Europe via direct routes and reducing pollution at Heathrow will do much more for the environment than waving flags and telling Scotland that its economic growth must come to a sudden end.
There is a wide range of projects and investment in trams in Scotland. Roads have been mentioned. By 2006, 70 per cent of transport spending will be on public transport, which has never been achieved by any previous Administration. I hope that the Scottish Green Party will acknowledge that achievement.
In respect of health, we will require more efficient use of energy in buildings. On education, we are developing curriculum materials to promote environmental awareness. On social justice, we will reduce the number of people in fuel poverty by 30 per cent by 2006.
We will recycle and compost 25 per cent of our municipal waste by 2006. Members should consider examples throughout Europe. They will then find that even the best and most progressive countries—regrettably—still have to have recourse to landfill and incineration.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No—I am short of time.
In short, the programme is the most ambitious programme for the environment and sustainable development that has ever been prepared by a Government in Scotland. Our next task is to deliver on those commitments. Cabinet ministers will be responsible for delivering on the environmental and sustainable development commitments in their areas. That work will be supervised by the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainable Scotland, which met yesterday to discuss the programme and tasks. Over the next months, I shall meet each Cabinet minister to examine and assess with them how their programmes are meeting commitments.
We have the political will to deliver on sustainable development and our ambitious programme will be underpinned by our commitment to deliver strategic environmental assessment. We have set out a two-stage process to deliver strategic environmental assessment—again, I am sorry that Robin Harper carps about the matter. We will introduce regulations to implement the European directive by 21 July 2004, which is the due date. Then, we shall introduce an early and comprehensive bill on strategic environmental assessment. Once the bill is enacted, we will repeal the regulations so that there is a single body of law that deals with strategic environmental assessment, which will take things much further than the absolute requirements that are contained in the directive.
There will be two major benefits. First, the quality of decision making will be improved. Assessing the environmental implications of options will ensure that decisions are based on sound evidence and that we understand the consequences of what we are doing. A culture change will result and environmental factors will be considered at the start of policy making rather than being simply an afterthought.
Strategic environmental assessment gives us new opportunities for public involvement, scrutiny and increasing the transparency of public decision making. Therefore, it is at the heart of our drive for environmental justice.
In summary, we have a clear framework for sustainable development, clear priorities and indicators and challenging targets. We have made a commitment to action to make Scotland more sustainable for the benefit of its people.
I move amendment S2M-559.3, to leave out from "intention" to end and insert:
"commitment to a Scotland that delivers sustainable development, puts environmental concerns at the heart of public policy and secures environmental justice for all of Scotland's communities; welcomes the Executive's commitment to introduce Strategic Environmental Assessment for public sector strategies, programmes and plans, and welcomes the demonstration of the commitment to sustainable development in every section of A Partnership for a Better Scotland."
A signal that there is an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to make a huge difference in achieving sustainable development is that our standing orders state that any bill that comes before it must have attached to it an assessment of its impact on sustainable development. That is a far cry from what happened in this country a few years ago. Then, the whole of the United Kingdom was referred to as the dirty man of Europe.
Like people in the rest of the UK, Europe and the world, the people of Scotland face key challenges. Nowadays, many folk live in better housing and there are more cars, videos and personal computers. We take more holidays and enjoy more leisure, but such changes have a massive impact on the environment. The challenge must be to reduce demands on the earth's resources, improve all environments and tackle poverty, which is a key objective of any sustainable development strategy.
The Scottish National Party agrees that sustainable development must be a thread through absolutely everything that is done and must not be simply a fad for politicians who now and again turn their attention to the issue. We all remember Tony Blair soon after he was elected in 1997 going to Europe surrounded by Cabinet ministers and dictating what should happen to help the environment, then going to New York and speaking to the United Nations. I do not think that many of us remember him doing much to achieve sustainable development since his warm words and such rhetoric.
In September last year, after his visit to the South African summit, the First Minister made a statement to the Parliament on sustainable development. I cannot remember him talking much about sustainable development since then or making further statements to the chamber. The issue does not seem to be particularly high on the Executive's agenda.
Does the member simply have a short memory or is he not interested in reading about what the First Minister does? The First Minister has made important statements, particularly about sustainable development and social justice, and I am surprised that the member has missed them. Perhaps his mind was on other things.
The key for the Executive is to ensure that sustainable development is a priority. There have not been many ministerial statements or comments by the First Minister about sustainable development in the chamber. If the issue is a top priority, we must hear more from ministers so that the Parliament can hold the Executive to account.
We must change the culture of individuals in Scotland, our communities, businesses and, of course, politicians. As other members have said, the key challenge is to marry economic development with sustainable development.
I was interested in the World Wildlife Fund's saying that, because we do not have a proper green jobs strategy in Scotland, we are missing out on 50,000 jobs. I remind members that there are currently around 150,000 unemployed people in Scotland. Unemployment could be cut by one third in Scotland if we got our act together in implementing a green jobs strategy.
We do not want to be churlish. The Parliament and the Executive have made steps forward. Strategic environmental assessment has been mentioned and I hope that it will change the culture of the public sector in Scotland. Much more must be done in respect of renewable energy and the national waste strategy, but at least we are making a start.
However, we must bear in mind the fact that the impetus for many changes has come from the European Union rather than from Executive ministers; we are simply responding to directives that must be implemented. That said, it is important to continue to emphasise reducing the use of materials and reusing and recycling materials in Scotland.
People must change. That means that education must be the key in chasing sustainable development. I have a leaflet by the north of Scotland sustainable development awareness campaign. Most people in Scotland do not know what is in such leaflets. Even the New Internationalist magazine—which not many people read; only a few middle-class people in Scotland read it—has produced an excellent poster that shows a 20-step programme to kick habits and improve people's impact on the environment. We must ensure that the people of Scotland are aware of all the steps that they can take.
The Executive's record is not perfect. Robin Harper referred to an issue that was in the press yesterday. A draft independent report by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy commission said about sustainable development that the Executive is cheating on our children, cheating on our neighbours and cheating on ourselves.
Our colleague Robin Harper was gracious enough to amend his speech in the light of a correction that I gave in respect of the exact quotation from the document. I would be delighted to give the member a copy of that correction afterwards. The document does not refer only to the Executive—Parliament and wider society were also discussed. There is collective responsibility. That was the whole point of the paragraph.
I will wait and see what the report says, but I gave a direct quote.
The key point that the SNP wants to make is that many key drivers in achieving sustainable development are reserved to Westminster. Many transport issues—which we must get right if we want to address sustainable development—are reserved to Westminster, as are energy and nuclear power issues. Fiscal policy and the carrot-and-stick approach to make people change their behaviour are also reserved to Westminster.
Robin Harper said that if one good policy is undermined by bad policies elsewhere, we will lose its benefits. That is true. If we are to make a real difference, we need cross-cutting legislative powers. There is no point in adopting the best policies that we can in Scotland only to be undermined by what is happening in London. That is why this country needs full financial independence so that we can make a real difference. Scotland is a perfect size—we simply need the tools to make a difference.
I move amendment S2M-559.1, to insert at end:
"and recognises that, by gaining the powers enjoyed by other independent member states of the EU, the Parliament's efforts to achieve sustainable development will be greatly enhanced as this will provide legislative powers over matters currently reserved to Her Majesty's Government that influence sustainable development, the ability to use fiscal measures and direct representation on international bodies dedicated to protecting the environment".
Conservatives have always supported a sustainable development policy that is aimed at empowering the individual and increasing choice, while reducing the power of the bureaucracies. However, our priority for a sustainable Scotland is not the Greens' centre-down emphasis on arbitrary and often unrealistic targets; rather, it is to offer practical support and encouragement for rural businesses and industries—in particular, the fishing sector, which needs assistance as never before to ensure that fishing communities will have a sustainable future. As Liberal Democrat minister Tavish Scott put it eloquently earlier this week, what is the point of sustaining Scotland's fish stocks if the communities that have depended on them for generations have disappeared?
It is estimated that 20,000 people in Scotland owe their jobs directly to the fishing industry and that around 48,000 jobs are in some way economically dependent on it—that is twice as many people as were ever employed by the North sea oil industry at its peak. In places such as Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Mallaig, Macduff, Shetland and Pittenweem, fishing is the fabric that binds communities together. The fishing industry underpins other key industries such as tourism and has a massive impact on the local culture and social cohesion. Without a fishing industry, many of those communities will simply die.
The problem is that, because the fish are decreasing in numbers, the industry is not sustainable. Surely, the drive should be to find truly sustainable replacement businesses.
I hope to come to that in a moment.
At a time when countries such as Spain and Ireland are still taking advantage of European Union subsidies to build up their fleets, we are sending ours to the breaker's yard.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not at the moment. I have a lot to get through.
No one denies that North sea cod stocks are in trouble. There are many reasons for that—probably involving global warming and the migration of cod elsewhere. However, at the same time, we are seeing bigger stocks of haddock in Scottish water than we have seen for 30 years, and herring and other species are abundant. Cod is not a major Scottish species, yet, to stop its being taken as a bycatch, draconian measures have been placed on all Scottish vessels, which could eventually result in the collapse of the whole white-fish fleet.
Ross Finnie will shortly go to this year's EU negotiations. However, if the result of last year's negotiations is anything to go by, our fisherfolk have never been in greater peril.
Will the member give way?
No, I cannot. I have a lot to get through.
Local management, with fishermen at the heart of the negotiations, is now essential. After 30 long years of futile negotiation, Conservatives believe that the only possible way forward is withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. That is now the position of the SNP and, this week, we have learned that it is also the position of certain members of the Liberal Democrats—especially those in Shetland, where the issue is a particular hot potato.
Earlier this year, Tavish Scott accused Tories of attempting to con fishermen by advocating withdrawal from the CFP. Now he says that the CFP is not working and that it should be scrapped. Who is conning whom now, Tavish? How does he propose that it should be scrapped? Does Tavish Scott seriously expect other members to behave like turkeys and vote for an early Christmas? I encourage him in his new-found desire to part company with the CFP. Let us hope that he can persuade his Executive ministerial colleagues, such as Ross Finnie, to follow his lead. I agree that it is a distinct possibility that, within a decade, there will be not only no fishing industry left in Shetland, but, with the running down of North sea oil, precious few constituents either.
I am delighted to hear that the Tories are opposed to the CFP. Can Ted Brocklebank remind us who took us into the CFP?
Yes, I am happy to do that. Ted Heath took us into the CFP in 1973. However, he ceded responsibility only out to the 12-mile limit. It was Jim Callaghan's Government, four years later, that ceded responsibility from 12 miles to 200 miles. If we are passing the blame, let us add that.
As far as Scotland is concerned, the CFP has long been a busted flush, and the only way out of the game is to walk away. There is too much at stake for the other players to say that the game is a bogey and cash in their chips. Member countries will fight like piranhas to preserve the maxim of equal access to the common fishery resource. If we are talking about the long-term sustainability of Scottish fish stocks, that is what makes Scotland's position within the CFP unsustainable.
I move amendment S2M-559.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"but notes that this should be aimed at the individual, increasing choice and environmentally-friendly incentives while reducing the power of the bureaucracies, and further pledges its support for renewable policies as well as supporting rural businesses and industries, including fishing communities and aquaculture."
I am glad to be able to take part in the debate. The debate should be about how we get from where we are to a Scotland that we can truly call sustainable.
There are two things that we need to do. First, we must build on the progress that has been made by acknowledging the challenges that we have overcome, the shifts that there have been and the tasks that remain. Secondly, we must work out what changes are needed. We must raise awareness, develop a commitment to change and then agree on the action to be taken. We have a long way to go at each level. Rather than concentrating on specific policy issues, as a couple of members have done, I will talk about some of the institutional changes that the Parliament needs to make.
I was interested in Robin Harper's attempt to appropriate the whole Parliament's environmental conscience for the Greens. All the parties have made some progress. The Labour party has made huge progress over the past decade, not only since the arrival of the Greens in the Parliament. We have tried to put sustainable development at centre stage, not just by appropriating the language but by thinking about the policy choices and challenges that sustainable development brings. We have grappled with the problems of joining up government on social justice and environmental justice, economic prosperity and environmental justice, and—the really tough task—all three together. We have made the links and we have started to make some progress on developing them. It is also important that we work with other countries and the rest of the UK, as we have a lot to learn. We have come a long way in a short time, but there is still a lot of change that we need to make.
Our huge progress is reflected in the partnership agreement, which builds on the first four years of the Scottish Parliament. We do not need any lectures on conscience, as we have had to make some tough choices. We just heard Ted Brocklebank grappling with the problems in the fishing industry. The Environment and Rural Development Committee has had to make some tough choices. Ironically, it is Labour and Lib Dem members who have been prepared to make tough decisions now to protect the viability of our scallop industry. None of the parties would be 100 per cent perfect in making those tough decisions, including the Greens, and the Greens did not support us on the scallop industry because there was not yet a crisis in that industry. What happened to the precautionary principle?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not. I have only four minutes, and Eleanor Scott will get another chance to speak.
It is important not to be simplistic. There is not one answer and there is no single green truth on these issues. The challenge is for us all to work together to deal with these difficult, tough issues.
In the report that Robin Harper mentioned, which I was involved in preparing this week, we examined structures at a ministerial level to see what more could be done to give political leadership to implement ideas that are in the partnership agreement. We also looked at the civil service and considered a more integrated approach that builds on the excellent work that has been done in social justice on closing the gap in order to learn the lessons and to translate that into work across the whole Executive. The key issue is how we mainstream sustainable development rather than see it as the preserve of environmentalists.
There is a big challenge for the Parliament, and I do not want us to miss the target. Every bill is meant to address sustainable development principles; however, I can think of only two bills that have done that properly—the National Parks (Scotland) Bill and the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. Sustainable development was at the core of both those bills and was debated extensively in committee, even making it to the chamber for debate. However, no member could put their hand up and say that every bill that we have debated has covered sustainable development and that we have tested all the legislative provisions that the Parliament has discussed.
There is a lot more for the Parliament to do to exert leadership. Let us audit our policies and look at the budget process and our own structures so that sustainable development is not just something that we demand from the Executive, but something that we take ownership of and put into practice. I support the Executive's amendment.
We have heard a classic opening to the debate, with the Minister for Environment and Rural Development coming out with some of the classic smears against the Greens and Sarah Boyack making a welcome speech that referred heavily to "Working Together for a Sustainable Scotland".
The most important thing about that document is where it starts. It starts in 2030. It starts with a vision of the future and then tries to work back to discover how we can reach that future. There is a growing consensus about the future that we want—a sustainable world. The year 2030 is a long way away and I will be reaching retirement then. It is also the year in which oil stocks will be running out. On current projections, the demand for oil will be vastly greater than the supply.
Tough choices will have to be made and Sarah Boyack was right to talk about them. Let us consider where we are now, in 2003, and what projections we are making for the next 27 years. Ross Finnie said that the Greens wanted to stop economic growth dead. That completely misses the point of what Robin Harper was saying. Economic growth should not be our principal objective. Our principal objective should be a sustainable future that guarantees quality of life for all Scotland's citizens and, as the report reminds us, for people across the world.
Mark Ballard talks about quality of life and I agree with all that he has said. However, how can quality of life be guaranteed for many of our citizens if they do not have economic opportunities and employment opportunities?
Economic opportunities and employment opportunities are not the same as economic growth. The Executive still measures economic growth in terms of net national product and the flow of money through the economy. That is not the same as providing economic opportunities. It is possible to have growth that does not create employment and stores up problems for the future. It is possible to have growth in the number of fish taken out of the North sea that undermines the stocks. Ted Brocklebank is correct to say that we have to preserve the fishing communities; if we do not protect the communities, who will be there to fish? However, if we do not preserve the fish stocks, the communities will fade away.
Why did the Green party fail to support a statutory instrument at the Environment and Rural Development Committee that will do just what the member is advocating? It will protect scallop stocks off the west coast of Scotland.
Eleanor Scott will deal with that question in detail, but I remind people that just because the word "conservation" appears in the title of a proposal, that does not mean that it will achieve conservation objectives. Scallop fishers have argued that the proposal would undermine conservation objectives.
I want to talk about the vision. Friends of the Earth Scotland has offered a vision of environmental justice. In Scotland, the policy agenda has been dominated by efforts to deal with grinding poverty and deprivation in our communities. Friends of the Earth Scotland has developed and promoted environmental justice. We have to link dealing with poverty and deprivation with providing a decent environment for all. I am glad that the Executive has recognised that. We must not take more than our fair share of the earth's resources. That applies to the Scottish context. Some communities consume far more than others. Some communities have access to cars and will use the expensive new motorways that the Executive is promoting, whereas other communities do not have that access and their lives will be blighted by the new motorways. We have to tackle deprivation, inequality and environmental unsustainability. That must be our priority—not an obsession with economic growth.
Some of the language on these issues is very complex for ordinary members of the public. When asked what was meant by sustainable development, only 27 per cent of people knew what the questioner was talking about. However, more than three quarters of people understood that people in Scotland need to change the way they live so that future generations do not live in a rubbish tip. The environment is terribly important. We do not want a smelly, dirty Scotland. Furthermore, the environment is worth £17 billion a year to the Scottish economy, which is £46 million a day.
Let us consider how what we do with waste affects our environment. In Scotland, we recycle less than 7 per cent of our waste. Even with Government targets, it will take 15 years—
Will the member take an intervention?
I have only four minutes; if I take interventions, I will never get through my speech.
Four minutes plus interventions.
If George Lyon wants the source of my statistics, I will tell him. They are from the Sunday Herald of 13 April 2003. He can look at them for himself.
What do we do with our waste? We put a lot of it in landfill sites, which is one of the most common ways of disposing of it. In Newington and Morningside in Edinburgh, people complain about the big black wheelie bins that are put in their streets and that destroy their environment, but perhaps they should work out why we have to have big black wheelie bins. We should forget about the bins and consider our weekly shop, which we are doing nothing about. We can now buy four baked potatoes on a big blue tray with a plastic top that just about requires a screwdriver to remove it. We could send it into orbit and it would come back intact. We do not need that.
What about carrots, cabbages and turnips? If we turn up at the till with loose vegetables, the man or woman there will look at us as if we are in the early stages of Alzheimer's. They then try to put the vegetables in bags. We can say, "No, I don't want them put in bags." If we go to the fish counter—and herring, by the way, is very cheap and a very good meal, so I will advertise it—where we used to get fish with a wee bit of paper wrapped around it, there is now a gadget to put the fish in foil. We can say, "No, don't do that to the fish! I'm taking it home and I will take it right out of that foil. It will not even go in the fridge in that wrapper. I'm going to eat it tonight." We have to stop people using such wrappers, but they look at us as if we are very strange. [Interruption.] Members should not comment on that. Don't go there!
This is a serious issue. When we put out our rubbish from the Friday or Saturday grocery shop, the bin is full. It is full of stuff that the food was wrapped in only from the moment we bought it until the moment we got to the kitchen. After that, it went straight in the bin. If we try to do something about that, it is impossible. We are thwarted.
We all know why that packaging is there: it is to woo the money out of our purses; it is to make us buy the four baked potatoes when we maybe just went into the shop for two. With bags of carrots, it is buy one, get one free. How often do those carrots perish in the fridge because we really did not want two big bags of them? We buy them because of the marketing strategy. However, it is costing us. It costs us at the till and it costs us as members of society to dispose of the waste. We should all pretend that there is a strike of the bucket men for a week so that we have to live without our rubbish being collected. We might have to fight off the foxes and cats. Our bins would be full and we would soon find out what we should be doing about recycling and an environmental strategy.
We do not have much power in this chamber. However, we could make a start by putting pressure on companies to reduce the amount of packaging that they use. Christmas is coming up. How many parents will end up having a bonfire at the bottom of the garden on Christmas day because they cannot move for packaging? We have to do something, right at the beginning, about getting rid of unnecessary packaging. The last thing that society wants—with its pizza containers and its ironically named disposable nappies, which apparently have a lifetime as long as that of the dinosaurs before they died out—is to leave future generations in a dirty Scotland with landfill sites that are full of all the rubbish that we did not need in the first place. Start there. Start with packaging.
Last May, seven Green members were elected to the Parliament under the assisted places scheme—the scheme under which the majority of members of Opposition parties have been elected. I welcome today's debate. Six months on, it allows us to see what contribution the Greens have made in taking forward green environmental issues. The speeches this morning from the Green members have demonstrated that they lack a clear idea of how sustainability can be achieved or, indeed, a clear idea of how sustainable development can be taken forward in practice.
It is not the Greens' fault that the newspapers are more interested in their stance on same-sex partnerships than in anything that they have said on environmental issues. However, Robin Harper on his own in the first months of the Parliament probably had more impact on environmental issues than the others have had more recently. When I wonder why that is, I look at the Green manifesto and I see that sustainable development is not even highlighted as a priority. That seems to me to be symptomatic of a wider failure of the Green party.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I will perhaps take one a bit later.
I offer the Greens the advice that if they really want to make a meaningful contribution to advancing sustainability, they have to stop posturing and engage in real politics and consider the real choices that Government has to make. That is about marrying the practicalities of introducing environmental policies—rather than the principles of those policies—with policies that will deliver economic growth and social justice.
The member talked about real choices. What about the real choices around GM crops? Why will his Executive not make a choice about GM crops and come off the fence?
There are real choices to be made about GM crops and real issues to consider. I look forward to the debate on GM crops, which is a debate not just for Scotland but for the world. I certainly want to contribute to that debate.
As convener of the Finance Committee, I spend considerable time—I might be a sad person—scrutinising budgets. However, trying to make sense of the budgetary and distributional consequences of the Scottish Greens' policies leaves me scratching my head. On the one hand it is clear that their taxation proposals are profoundly regressive. The land value tax would penalise poorer people living in cities and the proposal to hike up fuel tax would have adverse effects in rural areas. The Scottish specific waste disposal tax is a disaster tax; it would drive businesses away from Scotland. It beats me how damaging Scotland's economic prospects and the living standards of its people advances sustainability. Evidence worldwide shows that the opposite is the case.
On the other hand, most of the policies that the Greens put forward are uncosted, which suggests that they are likely to be unaffordable. Green health and education policies simply ignore resource issues, while housing, energy and transport policies are impractical in the short and medium term. In contrast, the advances that the Executive is making—reducing landfill; tackling fuel poverty; building affordable energy-efficient housing; improving public transport and making it more accessible especially to older people through concessionary fare schemes; and developing a green jobs strategy—testify to a real commitment, through the partnership, to delivering a sustainable future in which our environment is safeguarded properly.
Another flaw at the heart of the Greens' approach is the notion that they are linking their proposals to an independence agenda. What is that about? Environment does not recognise national boundaries. If we want to develop an environmental agenda and improve our environment in Scotland, that is dependent on what other people do around the world, particularly what our immediate neighbours south of the border do. Our objective has to be to influence and work with others to develop a sensible agenda for saving the world. I was a bit perturbed by Ted Brocklebank's contribution on Scottish cod. The idea that there is a tartan flag on each cod in the North sea seems rather strange.
As Sarah Boyack pointed out, the Executive partnership, rather than the Greens, has delivered on environmental issues. I got sustainable development into the water bills to which Sarah Boyack referred and her work on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill advanced that agenda. Substantial change is taking place. Part of the reason why we have achieved that is not an ideological commitment to environmental issues and improvement but the link between our environmental agenda and our social justice agenda. We see environmental justice and social justice as inextricably linked. They are both linked to improving standards for our people, given economic and fiscal realities, which include people's aspirations to economic betterment and high-quality services. That is where we stand. People will get real, practical environmental improvement from the Executive; from the Greens they will just get hot air.
Robin Harper's speech demonstrated how black and white green can be. Life is not like that; we have to deal endlessly in shades of grey. Ross Finnie outlined the Executive's programme and its ability and commitment to deliver that programme. Richard Lochhead seemed to be asking for more talk. Although he showed us helpful posters, he criticised the Executive for not getting the message across—there is an inherent contradiction there. Ted Brocklebank seemed to be speaking in a different debate. Apparently, withdrawing from the CFP will deliver all we need on sustainability. Sarah Boyack made a clear-thinking and relevant speech. Mark Ballard, when challenged, drew a helpful distinction between economic growth and economic opportunity. We might have laughed at Christine Grahame's contribution, but she was right that the shopping basket is a good place to start making changes. Des McNulty made constructive criticism of the Greens' manifesto and spoke about the links between social justice and environmental improvement.
The Liberal Democrat constitution states:
"We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long-term continuity of life in all its forms."
Environmental sustainability has always been at the heart of the Liberal Democrat policy programme. In 2001, we were the only political party with a green action section in every chapter of our manifesto, integrating environmental thinking into every area of policy. Not only do we propose policies with the aim of contributing to environmentally sustainable development, but every commitment that we make is designed with an awareness of its impact on the ultimate goal of sustainability. Environmental sustainability is not an optional add-on to be tacked on at the end of the existing policy platform, but a core commitment.
In April 2002, sustainable development indicators were published as an essential step in embedding sustainability considerations throughout the Executive. The main priorities identified were renewable energy and conservation of energy; reducing the impact of travel; and examining where resources come from, how they are used and where they go. Political leadership at the highest level, as well as input from civic society, is critical if we are to move towards sustainability. The Cabinet sub-committee on a sustainable Scotland, chaired by the First Minister, is a good start. The recently created sustainable development forum will help to oversee full engagement on sustainable development issues throughout the Executive.
Empowerment is a fundamental concept in encouraging sustainable behaviour by all. A recent British social attitudes survey showed that public opinion on sustainability has changed little in the past 10 years. Concern about environmental degradation remains high, but the sense of personal responsibility is low. Concepts such as the Executive's slogan "Do a little, Change a lot" indicate the importance of individual action. It is essential that individuals feel that their action makes a difference. When people feel that their participation is making a difference, we will be moving successfully towards sustainability.
This is somewhat unusual, but we have a lot of time in hand. Jamie Stone was down to speak in the debate, but he was not here when the Presiding Officer was going to call him. He is back now, so I am happy to let him speak at this stage.
I hope that Jamie Stone will talk about cheese.
Curiously enough, I might talk about cheese. The key point that I want to make is that sustainability is about sustainable business. That was the reason for my intervention on Ted Brocklebank. I will speak from a Highland perspective. I said this last week in the chamber and I will say it again: there is recognition in communities such as Kinlochbervie that the fish are not going to come back for quite a long while. I salute the way in which the people of Kinlochbervie have recognised that one of a few long-term sustainable business opportunities is tourism.
Last weekend, I spoke to fishermen from Kinlochbervie who told me that they were unable to fish for deepwater species from that port, because they could not get a licence. Does the member agree that it is unbelievable that Scotland has only 2 per cent of the quota for deepwater species in her own waters?
I am sorry, but I do not want to get on to that subject. I want to talk about the future and sustainable business. There is a clear recognition that we have to get business into areas such as Kinlochbervie to help those communities; otherwise they die. The community's proposal to build a marina to attract the pleasure-boat trade makes an enormous amount of sense.
Will the member give way?
No, I do not have much time.
I declare an interest in my brother's cheese business. When I was a wee boy, we milked 18 cows on a small dairy farm. My mother decided to make cheese called crowdie. She got her figures wrong—instead of using 5 gallons, she used 50 gallons—and ended up with a truly astronomical amount. From there, the little business grew—it is not a big business and it will never make my brother rich. It really did start in the bath, and I went unwashed for a considerable time at about the age of 6. The business still exists and is, I submit, a small example of a sustainable business, because it uses a natural product from the Highlands—milk—adds value and sells it on. We sell it on the back of the image of Scotland, particularly the Highlands, as having an unspoilt environment, and the word "Highland" is itself a great selling point.
I have had good dealings with the Scottish Executive on matters such as Kinlochbervie and sustainable small business, so I fully back Ross Finnie's amendment. The Executive is doing its level best to acknowledge that sustainability is about sustainable business and is putting resources into that. I therefore applaud the Executive's actions and ask members to support Ross Finnie's amendment.
We now go back to closing speeches.
Last week, I spoke in the debate on integrated rural development, and much of what I said then applies to the debate on a sustainable Scotland. The previous Rural Development Committee identified the road infrastructure and transport in the Highlands as major priorities, but the Green party's transport policy seems to be based on bicycles and wind, and I sometimes wonder whether its highly popular leader, Robin Harper, travels by TARDIS like Dr Who. Unfortunately, we mere mortals have not reached the age of "Beam me up, Scotty," and until we do we will have to rely on the internal combustion engine to get around, especially in areas with few trains. In urban areas, we want first-class public transport, but in the region that I represent, the private car is a must. Low fuel costs and a good road infrastructure are essential to sustain life in rural areas. They are important for local businesses, particularly tourism, which is an important Scottish industry—and the environment matters for tourism.
Jamie McGrigor's use of the word "sustain" reminds me that so many people misunderstand what sustainability is. In fact, his colleague Alex Johnstone admitted only a few moments ago that he does not understand the concept. Will Jamie McGrigor define sustainable development for us, please?
I will do that in a minute, because it appears later in my speech. I assure my friends in the Green party that caring for the environment is central to Conservatism, because Conservatives believe in good biodiversity, which means recognising what is around us and making the most of it without damaging it for future generations. However, to do that, we need people who have confidence to populate and look after the rural areas. They need to know that they can make a living and that their children have a future. Transport is a key to that, as are happy and confident people.
I have a haunting fear that a slow nationalisation of nature is taking place. It is driven by environmental bodies and quangos that may have good intentions, but appear to have limited practical experience of the realities of living in Scotland's countryside. If we want a sustainable Scotland, we need a profitable Scotland, and it is often local people's activities, livelihoods and pastimes that have protected species of flora and fauna that thrive in certain places. All too often, the practical views of local people are not taken into account when Scottish Natural Heritage decides to impose the designations special area of conservation and site of special scientific interest. In many cases, those designations are forced through against the wishes of local people, without enough consultation and without a thought to how so-called conservation measures will affect the sustainability of people's livelihoods. We must reverse depopulation, or we will not have a rural culture, and culture, as well as Scotland's landscape, is important to tourism.
In Scotland, we are lucky to have a beautiful, open landscape and prodigious wildlife. We have bigger herds of red deer than any other country in western Europe. They are a priceless national asset, but are being demonised by so-called conservationists who appear to want to create a different landscape of so-called native woodland. Members might think such a woodland lovely, but the reality of such an experiment in the hills in the northern hemisphere is often a landscape comprising stunted scrub and tick-infested shin-tangle, which is unpleasant and impossible to walk through as well as being species poor.
Jamie McGrigor said that he wanted good biodiversity. Would he call more land where an overpopulation of deer nibbles away any chance for the natural climate species of the Highlands to regrow "good biodiversity"?
Overgrazing is not good, but Mark Ballard would need to tell me what he thinks is a proper level of good grazing. Good grazing can be achieved by good management, and it is perfectly possible to grow woods of beautiful deciduous trees—such as oak, ash, beech, birch, Scots pine and rowan—in the sheltered glens without having to slaughter huge numbers of the beautiful red deer.
Will Jamie McGrigor give way?
No, I will not give way now.
Along with sensible, sustainable numbers of sheep, the red deer keep Scotland's hills properly grazed, thus ensuring easy access for people who enjoy hill walking. We simply put a fence round the trees, which will keep the deer out—that way, we serve the trees and the deer—and manage the deer herds, taking a harvest each year to maintain the sustainability of a herd.
Wind up, please.
When the trees are mature, the fences can come down.
On the sustainability of a good tourism industry, the Executive must reassure us that a proliferation of wind farm towers will not be detrimental to tourism. I have lived in Scotland most of my life and have seen the erection of electricity pylons and hydroelectric dams, all of which caused opposition and furore at the time, but which have not affected tourism in the long term and obviously benefit those who receive the electricity. The Conservatives are in favour of renewable energy, but ask that wind farms be sensitively situated so that they are not offensive to local people and do not spoil Scotland's wild and beautiful countryside.
Wind up, please.
How am I doing for time?
You have now had six of your three minutes, Mr McGrigor.
A sustainable Scotland relies heavily on small businesses and is underpinned by good infrastructure. It is up to the Executive to provide that infrastructure.
I can give a degree of latitude to Stewart Stevenson, who is closing for the Scottish National Party.
That is a dangerous offer, Presiding Officer, but thank you for it anyway. I sometimes think that Jamie McGrigor knows what he is thinking only when he hears it and I sometimes wish that he would not share it with us quite so generously.
"Sustainable development is not an optional extra. Our social, economic and environmental ambitions are interlinked and we must work to deliver all three if we are going to deliver the quality of life we want for ourselves and for future generations."
I hope that those words are familiar to the minister, because they are, of course, his. I suspect that almost all members will find themselves agreeing with those words and I hope that the Greens will recognise that one of the legs on which sustainable development must stand is economic sustainability.
Personal experience always informs political debate and as I drive each week back home from Aberdeen to Peterhead and am treated to the rather unsightly view of four major tips—which not only service the local area but bring waste to Peterhead from all over Scotland, including from Inverness—the point of sustainability is reinforced: we must eliminate waste.
We have heard a number of interesting speeches. Robin Harper described the fishing industry as wanting economic growth at any cost. He needs to get out and speak to some fishermen, because they are desperate to have a sustainable industry and to ensure that the science that assesses the stocks in the sea is good so that their sons and their sons' sons have a future. It is the regulatory regime that has failed.
Ross Finnie said that the Executive had 78-plus commitments and that 70 per cent of the transport budget would be spent on public transport in the future. That is all very good, but I believe that there is a practical difficulty with that—and I am surprised that the convener of the Finance Committee, Des McNulty, did not bring it to our attention. There are 145 targets in the budget for 2004-05, but how many of them meaningfully address sustainable development? In my estimation—the minister can tell me otherwise—the answer is 10. Furthermore, they come under only three policy areas. Two of the targets come under the communities budget. Seven of the 17 environment and rural development targets could be included—well done, minister—whereas only one of the seven targets for tourism addresses sustainable development. The rhetoric does not necessarily translate into the budget and into the Executive's main targets. There is therefore much more work to do.
As Nora Radcliffe pointed out, sustainability is not an add-on. Even in the Parliament, there are some little, simple things that we do not do or that we do not do well. I was disappointed to discover, on returning to the Parliament for its second session, that, for some reason that I do not understand, we all had new personal computers on our desks. Why are we scrapping equipment after only four years' use? When I retired from my professional life in computers, we had a PC that we had been using for 20 years—we bought it in 1980 and were still using it when I retired in 1999, because it was still working and it still did the job for which it was bought. We do not need to be spending money in the Parliament on things that will last only four years if they actually have a lifespan of 10 years.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is in the final minute of his speech.
Jamie McGrigor referred to forestry. I agreed with a lot of what he said, but his party's track record on sustainable forestry is not terribly impressive. Throughout Scotland can be seen banks of distressed and unmanaged forests, which were introduced for tax reasons. They are sub-economic: the value of harvesting the forests is less than its cost. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.
On renewable energy, we welcome support for wind farms, although we are cautious about the unmanaged way in which they are being developed. We have to make progress in that area but, in doing so, we are following the lead of many other European countries, rather than being a leader ourselves. Similarly, we are not doing enough on wave power, where we could be a leader. We could be selling our technology to the rest of the world. There is not a lot of economic benefit for us in wind power, but there is sustainable development benefit.
We have a choice between being leaders and followers. I say to the Executive that we need to be leaders and not—as is suggested under its current plans—followers.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, as we might expect on the subject of sustainable development. The majority of contributions have been positive, upbeat, stimulating and interesting. I would, however, exclude a couple of speeches from that description. Mr Brocklebank's contribution, interesting as it was and concentrating as it did on fishing, failed to address the biggest sustainable development issue facing the fishing industry, which is the decline in stock and biomass and how that can be addressed to maintain a sustainable fishing industry and sustainable fishing communities.
Will the minister take an intervention?
If the member does not mind, I will move on, as I do not want to get bogged down on fish—yet again.
Christine Grahame gave us a stream of consciousness, describing a capitalist conspiracy by the packaging industry to make us buy more baked potatoes. I understand from what she said that an independent Scotland would be a terry-towelling Scotland. I have good news for her: through sustainable action grants, we have provided funding for the Scottish nappy network, which has been set up to promote renewable nappies. [Applause.] That is a significant step forward. However, the Scottish Executive has set its sights a little higher than simply promoting renewable nappies.
I am feeling particularly stigmatised, as someone who used disposable nappies. If I had a child tomorrow, I would probably use them again. I do not think that we should be guilt-tripping women when they are doing their shopping.
I wish to ask the minister about a separate point. Could he comment on the Executive's view of the urban environment and the importance of sustainability issues to cities? Too often, the focus in such debates is entirely on rural areas, but the issue is significant for people in communities in my constituency.
As the member knows, I agree entirely with those sentiments. We have put at the heart of our environmental agenda and our agenda for sustainable development the question of environmental justice. That means that communities in urban environments that have been put upon through environmental degradation have the opportunity to improve their environment and their quality of life by embracing the principles of environmental justice.
If the member does not mind, I would rather make progress. The Greens' basic criticism of our policy was that there were inconsistencies in what we had to say. One criticism was that we put economic growth at the heart of our agenda for sustainable development. I make no apology for that. As I have said, I believe that economic growth and the creation of sustainable employment, giving economic and employment opportunity to some of the poorest people in our community, is at the heart of building sustainable communities.
When I recently attacked Scottish Enterprise about its apparent lack of commitment to sustainability, it said that the Executive tasks it solely with economic development. Is that the case, or does the Executive, with its new ideas, intend to revise Scottish Enterprise's remit?
As my colleague Ross Finnie has just said to me, we set targets and indicators for Scottish Enterprise as we do for every Government agency.
To turn to a point that Richard Lochhead raised, we are committed to a green jobs strategy. My colleague Jim Wallace will be launching the draft strategy for consultation very soon. However, we will take no lessons from nationalists or Greens on creating employment opportunity. The United Kingdom Government's record on creating employment opportunity and addressing the economic inequality that is caused by unemployment is second to none over the past century.
I say to Robin Harper that economic growth does not have to be at the expense of the environment. We will work with business to develop and implement the green jobs strategy and we will assess economic development policies against their impact on our sustainable development indicators. We have a whole range of measures in place to help business to be more sustainable and to drive the economic benefits that that can bring.
That does not include banning low-cost air fares. Tourism is a key driver of our economy and creates employment opportunities throughout rural Scotland.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will continue, if the member does not mind.
The minister is in his last minute.
Tourism is increasingly dependent on low-cost air travel, so that even tribunes of the people, such as Tommy Sheridan, can commute back and forth to Havana at relatively little cost.
The minister has obviously never done it.
I have spent many a happy hour in Havana, it has to be said. The point is that depriving ordinary working people of the opportunity of air travel is not the way to create a sustainable economy.
I do not have the time to go over all the points that have been raised, but I will, as ever, make myself available to discuss them with members. I am pleased that the Scottish Green Party welcomes the Executive's intention to place the environment and sustainable development at the heart of our policy making. As I have explained, the commitments of the partnership agreement are not contradictory, nor are they in conflict with sustainable development. The Green party needs to take a more holistic view of what sustainable development means and it needs to come on board with the Executive.
I call Eleanor Scott to wind up the debate.
Presiding Officer, I hope that you will be generous with me as well, because some members have had quite a long time to say their piece.
I thank all the members who have taken part in the debate, which I have enjoyed. It is heartening to hear words such as "sustainability" and "environmental justice" being spoken in the chamber by people other than Green members.
Because I was asked to, I will mention scallops and get the subject out of the way. I did not vote for a proposed scallop conservation measure because I did not think that it would work. I voted as I did not because I did not think that there was a potential problem with scallop stocks, but because I did not think that the measures would address the problem. It is interesting to note that stocks of scallops, which were hitherto unregulated, were in a slightly healthier state than stocks in other, heavily regulated sectors of the fishing industry, which suggests that, when we try to regulate, we do not get it right. I felt that the proposed measures would just increase pressure on scallops. The minister and others took a different view. Time will tell who was right. However, I will not vote for something just because it is labelled "conservation"—I have to think about whether it will work. I agree with Stewart Stevenson that, in the past, we have not got that right. That does it for the scallops.
Greens are delighted by the increased awareness of the environmental challenges that face Scotland and by the increased recognition that we have to change things. As Robin Harper stated, there are many positive commitments in the partnership agreement and we support them. We are pleased that some Green party policies, such as moves on green jobs and the polythene bag tax, are now being picked up by other parties. That is a sign that the Parliament is starting to share a vision and that the Greens are having an impact. Sarah Boyack said that all parties have moved and that a green conscience is not just the prerogative of Greens. I agree with that. However—and I do not want to sound sanctimonious—other people see us as the conscience, which is why there are now seven Green members.
As Robin Harper made clear, if one good policy is undermined by something that is environmentally damaging, we are no further forward and we might even be worse off. That would be the case if, for example, the 70 per cent of the transport budget that is for public transport includes the projected increase in air travel. I reassure the minister that the Greens are not saying that we must stop all flying today. We are simply saying that flying three times as much tomorrow is environmentally irresponsible and not sustainable.
Des McNulty tried to engage us in debate—in fact, he talked at us, but at least he talked about our agenda as opposed to his hobby-horses. I have our manifesto here and I reassure him that, on page 4, which is the first page of text after the contents, sustainable development is mentioned twice:
"Greens also believe that Scotland has the potential to be a leader in sustainable development, demonstrating new ways to live within the planet's means."
I will not read out the whole passage, but sustainable development is mentioned twice on the first page. I am sure that it is mentioned elsewhere, but I was listening to the debate and could not go through the manifesto. I reassure Des McNulty that sustainable development is mentioned in our manifesto.
Des McNulty misunderstands Green politics, which is probably why he finds our commitment to independence a bit difficult. We are committed to radical democracy and to people making decisions at the most local level, as near as possible to where decisions are enacted. We are committed to social justice, one aspect of which is the proposed civil registered partnerships bill. We are also committed to sustainable development and environmental responsibility. We are, after all, a political party; we are not an environmental pressure group. We want to shift tax on to resource consumption. The simple truth is that the rich consume more than their share. Unlike Mr McNulty, I do not believe that a land value tax—which is being extensively debated at the moment—would impact more on the poor. Our citizens income scheme would be a powerful tool for the redistribution of wealth, which is an issue that other parties have to take on.
Eleanor Scott will know, as she lives in the Highlands, that there is a serious problem with the idea of raising tax on diesel and petrol. Does she concede that that is a problem in the Highlands and that a VAT derogation would tackle the problem? If the price of fuel goes up any further, we will strangle our communities.
Fuel is only one of the costs of motoring in the Highlands or anywhere else. In the Highlands, insurance is considerably cheaper, for example. Few people say that having taxed, insured and paid for their car, they will not run it because fuel is so expensive. We have to look at the whole picture. I would be happy to debate that issue further.
We agree with Richard Lochhead's amendment that having our own fiscal and other powers would enable a Scottish Government to take more effective action. After all, that is Green party policy. Of course, those powers in themselves would not deliver sustainability—that would depend on what we did with those powers. I am sure that Mr Lochhead agrees that we must do our best for Scotland and the world with the powers that we have now and not sit back until independence day. That said, we are happy to accept the amendment.
I have more of a problem with the Tory amendment. I do not accept that a sustainable economic policy will necessarily be more bureaucratic than an unsustainable one. Equally, I do not believe that laissez-faire will ever deliver sustainability—it certainly has not done so so far. I wonder why the Tories think that sustainability and the environment are purely rural issues. I agree with Johann Lamont's point that the urban environment is crucial.
As to the minister's amendment, well, he would say that, wouldn't he? We welcome the Executive's pledge on strategic environmental assessment and agree with the minister about its importance. Strategic environmental assessment was promised in the previous session and only now is it being brought forward to comply with the European Union directive that is due to come into force in July. That suggests that the Executive is moving grudgingly towards sustainability and that it is doing so only when it is forced to, instead of truly embracing the concept. Having said that, I welcome the measure. I do not want to be niggly—I know that Mr Finnie thinks that we are being niggly. We will be supportive. However, as Robin Harper said, once strategic environmental assessment is in place, it might not cover or review existing strategies, such as transport policy. I would welcome reassurance from the minister on that point.
The report by the Centre for Scottish Public Policy commission, which has been mentioned several times, proposed a sustainable development committee that would work in the same way as the Equal Opportunities Committee—it would scrutinise the work of other committees and Government bodies to ensure that sustainability is mainstreamed into their work. That is a good idea and I hope that it can be taken forward. I hope that the report will be extensively discussed, because there is a lot in it that we could support. That particular proposal would be one way of achieving the integration that our motion calls for.
In conclusion, I hope that members agree that sustainability is about the world that we bequeath to future generations and about how those generations will judge us. I ask members to support the motion.