Sustainable Development
We move to the debate on motion S1M-1694, on sustainable development, in the name of Sam Galbraith, and three amendments to that motion.
Sustainable development has the potential to deliver substantially on the Executive's social justice agenda. It binds together much of our programme for government and, as people become more comfortable with the positive benefits that it offers, we will be able to make connections with other fundamental concerns, such as biodiversity and education.
The Scottish Parliament held its first debate on sustainable development on 3 February 2000. At the end of that debate we passed a motion that said:
"That the Parliament places sustainable development at the core of its work".
The Scottish Executive has made and renewed its commitment to sustainable development. It was a key theme in last year's programme for government. This year's programme for government carries that theme through and embeds it in the machinery of government. We have now moved from an ambition for sustainable development that needed explanation and justification, to an action programme that stands up in its own right.
The ministerial group on sustainable Scotland, which is an important focus for taking our programme forward, has two external members: Kevin Dunion of Friends of the Earth Scotland, and Mark Hope of Shell Expro. They provide perceptions that are difficult to obtain by other means, and have given our group particular vigour. I am grateful to both for their commitment and hard work, and for the knowledge and expertise that they have brought to the group.
In its first year, the group has addressed three main areas: resource management; energy use and generation; and transport and planning. Those themes should ring loud and clear for Scottish people and Scottish business. They should be daily concerns for Scottish communities and, if we get them right, they should improve the lives of many people who live in the worst circumstances throughout Scotland.
A major programme is under way to deliver our national waste strategy, which is an important component of the resource management priority that was adopted by the group. We are putting £50.4 million into the strategic waste fund over the next three years. That will help local authorities to implement their area waste plans to reduce, reuse and recycle as much waste as possible.
We are also continuing to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy. The Scottish climate change programme was published on 17 November last year. It sets out policies to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases in Scotland, which will help to deliver the UK's Kyoto commitment to reduce emissions by 12.5 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008-12. We have also set a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent of the 1990 level by 2010.
Under our warm deal, thousands of pensioners and other low-income households are now entitled to free central heating and home insulation measures. The important point about that policy is that it means not only that people who could not do so can now afford to heat their homes—which I stress is an important part of social inclusion—but it will, through increased energy efficiency, reduce the energy that they use.
The new renewables obligation (Scotland) will increase Scotland's already significant renewable energy resource. Responses to consultation will help to decide which forms of renewable energy will receive financial support from the Executive.
The third matter that I mentioned was transport and planning. Last November, Sarah Boyack announced £33 million for projects throughout Scotland to be supported by the third round of the public transport fund. Many local authorities have spent considerable time and effort on their revised structure plans. They have committed themselves to ensuring that new developments, whether for business or services, are accessible to everybody by public transport. As well as local authorities, business is involved. By reducing landfill waste, energy usage and unsustainable forms of business travel, companies make big savings. Promoting sustainability therefore makes good sense for business.
Members will see from what I have said that we can truly claim that sustainable development is becoming a routine part of the work of the Scottish Executive, Scottish business, Scottish local authorities and the Scottish people.
Will the Executive continue with the temporary funding that has been given to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to allow COSLA to work with local authorities to promote the local implementation of sustainability?
Murray Tosh is talking about local agenda 21, which is one of the Prime Minister's commitments. No, we will not continue with that funding. It is not the job of the Executive to fund posts in COSLA. That is COSLA's duty.
We are also examining how we should measure our progress towards a sustainable Scotland. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has adopted a set of indicators for its work. It is a vast set of 150 numbers, whose application to day-to-day programmes cannot be easy. We have commissioned a report on how indicators might be made more relevant to Scotland and we plan to publish that, along with our own thoughts, in the next month or so. Our report suggests that 40 indicators might do the job, but even 40 indicators will be daunting to many ordinary businesses. Is that still too many? It might be that we should find a simple set of numbers that have day-to-day significance if we are to influence large sectors of Scottish life to move on to the sustainable path. We want indicators that can be measured and that can tell us something useful. Most importantly, we want indicators that mean something to people in their daily lives. Above all, we want relevant indicators, not simply unachievable figures that are plucked out of the air. As always, there is a tension between getting something done quickly and getting it done properly—we intend to get things right.
Sustainable development started in earnest as a world movement at the Rio earth summit in 1992. Britain was then at the forefront in adopting a strategic approach. The impetus has been kept up in Europe, where the environment is high on the agenda and is one of the three priorities for the Swedish presidency of the European Union.
The world is planning an earth summit that will be known as Rio plus ten, to be held in South Africa in 2002. That summit will be a major global event in which Scotland should have a role. Engagement with the people of Scotland is an important part of the sustainable development process. In preparing for the summit, the Scottish people should have the chance to set out what they think.
We have therefore asked the Scottish civic forum to lead a major national consultation process. The main aims will be to spread understanding and to debate sustainable development. Everyone who is involved in that process should have a fair say. The Scottish civic forum will reach out to small and large organisations throughout the length and breadth of the country. It will host three major events—in the Highlands, central Scotland and in the south. To ensure that those in the remotest parts of the country can be heard, the BT teledemocracy centre will organise a consultation exercise.
Will the minister give way?
Of course. I will be delighted to do so.
On the meeting in the Highlands, does the minister feel that an additional 6p per litre on fuel tax and fuel costs in many parts of the remote Highlands is an example of sustainable development? If not, will he bring it to an end?
I always know that I will regret wasting time on letting Fergus Ewing intervene. I am afraid that that is the case again.
Sustainable development is a vast enterprise. No country on the planet has solved even the most primitive problems of sustainable development, but many are making good progress. In Scotland, we are neither the best nor the worst. We have passed some big hurdles. Sustainable development is now a key feature of our approach to government. We are making it a key criterion in our spending decisions. Sustainable development is absolutely central to our planning for the future, which is a central duty for Government.
The floods of last year are an example of the consequences of failing to live sustainably. Climate change and loss of biodiversity are realities. Social injustice, poor education and degraded environments are, equally, evidence of a failure to live according to the principles of sustainable development. Without the foresight that sustainable development encourages, the events of the future will continue to rain down on us, rather than be controlled by us.
I move,
That the Parliament affirms its commitment to sustainable development; recognises the importance of sustainable development to achieving social justice for all peoples, and commends the Scottish Executive for continuing to place the issue central to its policies and programmes, as evidenced in its Programme for Government: Working together for Scotland.
It is good to see the Executive—especially Sam Galbraith—bringing the complex issue of sustainability forward for debate. The debate is important; global trends continue to provide evidence that human activity threatens our ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
That, of course, is the goal of sustainability as defined by the Brundtland commission in 1987. Without a dramatic change in the current mindset and behaviour, that goal will remain inaccessible.
I will develop that theme. In the past 50 years, the world's population has more than doubled to 6 billion, and the world's economic input has increased almost sixfold. That unprecedented growth is altering the face of the earth and the composition of the atmosphere. The air and water are being polluted, waste is accumulating, forests are being destroyed, soil is being eroded, fisheries are being depleted and the ozone layer is being damaged. That threatens the survival of humans and thousands of other living species.
Society is living on its natural capital, not its income. We are acting like a planet that is in liquidation. Humans are conducting an uncontrolled experiment that is unprecedented in scope and scale and which could represent a significant reversal of natural evolution. However, despite the warnings of the world's scientists at the Rio conference in 1992, and the subsequent rhetoric about commitment to addressing environmental concerns, all the earth's living systems have continued to decline.
Some would say that the world's response has been irresponsible and dangerous. The current ideology of growth has captured humanity's imagination to the degree that we continue to believe that more of the same resource-intensive and pollution-creating economic growth is the best way of serving the common good.
How does Bruce Crawford reconcile his commitment to sustainable development with his party's policy to build more roads?
Well, actually—[Interruption.]—I am not sure about roads, but the sound system is certainly unsustainable.
The SNP's policy is intended to fill in the gaps that the Tories and Labour left. We approach today's debate against that background. We support much of what the Government is trying to achieve. [Interruption.] If the minister listened, he might find that I am trying to say good things about him. We recognise that some progress has been made. However, as might be expected, we have some difficulty with the somewhat self-congratulatory nature of the motion, as much work remains to be done and there continue to be concerns about the gaps in the Government's policy and programmes for action.
In March 1999, the advisory group on sustainable development produced a report that recognised that
"Sustainable development is about the wise use of all resources within a framework in which environmental, economic and social factors are integrated".
That group rightly looked forward to a vision of a Scotland in 2030 that involved Scotland's communities, citizens and resources. It considered what needed to be done and produced a 10-point action plan for the Scottish Parliament.
Because the time for today's debate has been reduced, I will concentrate on only two elements of that plan: monitoring indicators, on which the minister commented, and education. It is good to have at last some response to that 10-point action plan. It is interesting that the response has been produced when we might be close to a UK general election. There is no doubt that the group's most important action point concerned education. It said that the Executive should
"Put sustainable development at the heart of education, and education at the heart of sustainable development".
The SNP has twice attempted to put sustainability at the heart of education policy: first, in April 2000, at stage 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, and secondly, as recently as 6 December 2000, when the Education, Culture and Sport Committee discussed a statutory instrument on national priorities in education. Both our reasoned suggestions were rejected.
Does Bruce Crawford agree that the new environmental studies syllabus goes some way towards addressing that issue?
I am talking about national priorities, not specifics. It will be most useful if Allan Wilson lets members know, when he sums up, how the Executive intends to ensure that the principles of sustainability are incorporated into national priorities for education.
The greatest emphasis on sustainability must be placed in higher education. Our current thinking remains a significant obstacle to the promise of a just and sustainable future. As Einstein observed,
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
As the primary centres for teaching, research and learning, institutions of higher education are significant leverage points that reflect and inform current social mindsets. We must, in our pursuit of a sustainable future, capitalise on the influential position of higher education, but that will require significant changes. I am disappointed that the minister did not even begin to deal with that touchstone issue.
Much of the population has little idea about where goods come from, where they go or how destructive pollution is to human health. Too many of us believe that natural and physical resources are free and inexhaustible. We need to ensure that the next generation of students is prepared with the analytical skills and practical knowledge to respond effectively and compassionately to the challenges of the world.
Will the member give way?
I will finish this point, as I have given way twice and my time has been cut. I will get back to Mr Muldoon if I have a moment.
There is still an inclination to treat sustainability education just like other specialities, such as sociology or biology. The training of specialists is an inadequate response to the problems that we face. Our students are left with little feeling for interconnectedness and little understanding, outwith the narrow confines of their disciplines, of the workings of natural systems.
Governments, through their institutions of higher education, bear a profound responsibility to increase society's ability to create a just and sustainable future. It is up to the Government to provide the policy direction, the impetus and the framework, but not enough is being done. I hope that the minister will respond positively to the points that I have made in that regard.
The advisory group recognised the need for sustainable aims, objectives, targets and time scales. It said that, without targets, it is impossible to measure progress on sustainable development. Indicators should become as regular a part of public monitoring information as are the unemployment figures. As the minister stated, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recognises that indicators are a vital part of sustainable development, in order that we can keep track of progress in a way that is clear, comprehensive and useful to a wider audience. I have counted the indicators. There are 144 of them—not 150—spread over 12 pages.
The lack of meaningful and comprehensive indicators has been a serious failing in the Scottish Government's approach, yet that is not for want of promises of action. A year ago, in February 2000—the last time we debated the issue—the then Minister for Transport and the Environment announced that Scotland would have its own set of indicators. In March 2000, in a speech on integrating environmental issues, she said that she expected to report in the early summer of 2000 on indicators of sustainable development in Scotland. In a news release on 9 August, she said that she would publish a consultation document on sustainable Scotland later that month.
That was followed by an answer to a parliamentary question on 9 October, when the minister said that there would be a contract to develop proposals for indicators—that is similar to what we have heard from the minister today. There is a serious gap in the Government's toolkit. We have had an explanation about what is going on, but we want substantial progress. That is why, in relation to the indicators, we have tied the Parliament down to the end of May 2001. Will the minister deliver where the previous minister failed, or we will get more empty rhetoric?
The purpose of our amendment is meant to be positive. It recognises that, while the Government has made progress, much more must be achieved. It is the job of the Opposition to recognise where the Government is getting it right, but it must also point out where the Government is going wrong and where there are significant failings. We will do that job today. Our amendment recognises the reality of the situation on the ground—I hope that it will find wide support throughout the chamber.
I apologise to Bristow Muldoon that I could not let him in.
I move amendment S1M-1694.2, to insert at end:
"however, also recognises that a great deal of work still requires to be undertaken regarding sustainable development in the fields of social inclusion, rural affairs, fishing, education, health, transport and economic development as well as in relation to the wider environmental aspects, and believes in particular that meaningful sustainability monitoring indicators should be produced by the end of May 2001."
A year ago or more, when we previously debated the issue, Sarah Boyack announced that sustainable policies would be at the heart of everything that the Executive stands for and that sustainable development would be at the top of the Executive's agenda. She said that all the issues would be on the table—presumably that means that there would be a transparent approach to the entire debate—and that the three arms of the sustainable development strategy would be economic growth, social justice and the environment. That commanded general agreement at the time.
Today's Executive motion talks about social justice. It is important that we understand that social justice policies include development and, therefore, sustainable development. If we cannot generate wealth and if we do not allow people to share fairly in the consumption of resources, we cannot achieve social justice. We must have development. There has to be a proactive approach to expanding our economy.
I presume that the Executive motion encompasses economic growth and the social justice elements, but it appears that the motion rather overlooks the environment. I recognise that the minister's speech was more balanced than his motion, but the purpose of my amendment is to state the obvious: the environment is quite an important element and arm of the sustainability: debate.
I have no problems in agreeing with a great deal of what Sam Galbraith said in support of his motion. Clearly, sustainability has been on the Conservatives' agenda and has been growing in importance and significance since it first came to prominence in Rio in 1992. It has worked its way pretty thoroughly through the guidelines and policies that are issued in order to guide planners. My concern is that, to some extent, it has perhaps become stuck there. That is not meant to criticise or downgrade the importance of the planning system; it is meant to say simply that sustainability has to penetrate much further into the fabric of our thinking and of our political life.
There has been some progress in other areas. For example, all 32 Scottish councils have developed local agenda 21 strategies. However, we are entitled to ask whether sustainability is really at the heart of government. The minister's motion cites as evidence "Working together for Scotland: A Programme for Government", so I took a look at that document to see how prominent sustainability is, and I first came across it on the eighth page—roughly the middle. I suppose that one could say that that is where the heart is, but sustainability is not mentioned in the First Minister's preamble. It is not mentioned in the sections on education, enterprise, local government or transport, although I acknowledge that much—if not all—of what Sarah Boyack says on transport is motivated by an interest in sustainability.
So—is sustainability really so prominent? Is it really at the top of the agenda? Has the Government really put the emphasis on sustainability that it ought to put on it? I thought it revealing that Sam Galbraith said that the Government would not fund COSLA any further to develop local agenda 21 strategies. I wonder how he thinks that COSLA will do that. COSLA had a role to play and the local authorities have all developed their strategies, but where does that initiative go without funding? Is it truly viable to tell COSLA, when it is in a state of flux and turmoil, that it must fund that development itself? The sums in question were, relatively speaking, chicken feed, but it was useful pump-priming money to push the agenda forward. It seems that the minister is now asking the Scottish civic forum to do that free of charge.
Although the minister has spoken of the importance of sustainable development to the Executive, when one looks at what the Government has achieved and what it says is on-going work, pretty much all of it is new labels on old bottles. They are not necessarily worthless bottles, but a lot of it is on-going work. The Government is repackaging what it was already doing. One wonders what is really new and where the implementation strategy is.
I am happy to acknowledge that the Executive has, in many respects, favoured development. To some degree, Sam Galbraith and Sarah Boyack deserve congratulations on some of the planning decisions that they have made, which involved difficulties in balancing conservation and environment issues with economic development, but has anything changed qualitatively? Have we moved on?
Members received a briefing note from COSLA this morning, which expresses concerns about Sarah Boyack's commitment to transparency. There is a ministerial group on sustainable Scotland, but its meetings are not reported, so nobody knows what is being said. How transparent is that? COSLA is also concerned that there is no public scrutiny of how the Executive assesses the impact on the environment of its bills and how it carries out environmental audits of proposed legislation.
That is Parliament's job.
It is Parliament's job? Well—perhaps it is. However, when the Executive's policy memorandum states its assessment of the environmental implications of a bill, maybe it should offer some information and guidance about that. Let us assume that the Executive will not issue any environmental information until such information is asked for. If that is really the minister's approach to the Parliament and the sustainability debate, I hope that it gains the currency and notoriety that it deserves. If that is his attitude, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that COSLA can issue a briefing that asks for a Scottish sustainability strategy—which it considers does not exist—and for the production of indicators, which it considers to be an essential part of any such strategy.
It seems that it is the minister's wish to be seen to pay some respect to the concept of sustainability. We all accept that Sarah Boyack was genuine when she spoke in the debate in February last year, but it is difficult to see what has moved forward under the new minister. It is difficult to see what his vision is and how we will move the debate forward. It is difficult to see how he will deliver the objectives for which we are surely all waiting.
It will be interesting to see whether, in the course of the debate, we get a clearer idea of, for example, how an effective renewable energy strategy might evolve from the aspirations that we have all endorsed so far, and how a national strategy for waste treatment and real and effective recycling might come from the disaggregated approach of the local area strategies.
The biggest problem in the debate is raising awareness. That does not happen in our education system and I do not know how thoroughly it happens in the commercial sector and in public life. It is still largely a marginalised topic. If the Executive wants to move the debate forward, it must think about the topic's profile and about awareness of it. That means looking for partners who will determine the agenda and who will try to move it forward. So far, we have not heard how the minister intends to do that. That is why I have lodged my amendment, which calls on the Executive to outline an implementation strategy for achieving the objectives that all members share.
I move amendment S1M-1694.3, to leave out from ", and commends" to end and insert:
"and to passing on a decent inheritance to future generations of Scots; notes the progress reported to date in Working together for Scotland, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to consult urgently to produce a transparent and effective implementation strategy for sustainability."
I commend the speeches made by my two colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee, Bruce Crawford and Murray Tosh. My amendment adds something important to the debate—the concept of targets, which were not much mentioned in previous speeches. We need attainable and realistic targets and a genuine commitment to reaching them. My amendment addresses that rather large hole in the Executive's so-called sustainability strategy.
Scotland is close to—if not at—the bottom of the recycling table in Europe; we recycle less than almost any other country in Europe. As a principle, we should start with waste planning, beginning with those things at risk and working backwards. If we do that, we will end up with recycling as the lowest-risk, most economic solution to our disposal problems, along with waste reuse and waste minimisation, all three of which the minister mentioned.
Waste planning should be local; it must be possible to implement local alternatives. The Executive's waste strategy seems to be the opposite of that. Any application for an incinerator should include a sum of, say, £10,000, to be given to bona fide local community groups to assess the environmental statement of the people who have submitted the proposal for the incinerator.
I want briefly to give some figures on incineration compared with recycling. For every tonne of waste, £78 can be generated if the waste is recycled and up to £700 can be generated if it is manufactured into an end-product. Incineration of that amount will produce £26 of electricity. Why do we not have a target? Some time ago, we set a target of 20 per cent for recycling, which we should have reached this year; we have not got anywhere near it. I believe that the current level is about 6 per cent. In other parts of the world—for instance, at village level in Kent in England—70 per cent recycling is being achieved through intensive local recycling and composting.
The United States has worked forward from 8 per cent recycling eight years ago: New Jersey now has 43 per cent; Pennsylvania has 26 per cent; Washington has 39 per cent; Massachusetts has 34 per cent; and Minnesota has 45 per cent. Scotland has 6 per cent recycling and we do not even have an Executive target.
As Kent has been favourably mentioned, will Robin Harper also favourably mention Shetland, which has made great strides forward through internal arrangements?
I commend Shetland.
I remind the Executive that Dundee, which was one of the leading recyclers, has recently begun to slip back; I ascribe that to lack of support.
Sam Galbraith mentioned biodiversity but, as a quick scan of the documents reveals, the Executive has made no specific commitment on how it is going to protect diversity. Local authorities are producing expensive and wonderful assessments of the biodiversity needs of local areas—I have an example here of one of those documents. Local authorities have identified the issues, but where is the money and commitment from the Executive to help them? I believe that, at long last, the Executive has gathered in the last agenda 21 reports from the 32 local authorities in Scotland, although I do not think that it yet has all the biodiversity action plans. After all that work, where is the Executive's commitment to taking the issue forward?
I support Bruce Crawford's comments on education. In the United States, a recent survey of university students showed that 60 per cent of them would like some environmental education included in their courses, so that every course has an environmental unit attached to it. I do not believe for one minute that we do not have the same pressure in this country and that our students would not also like that. The demand exists, so what is the Executive going to do to meet it?
In Scotland, there is a loose organisation called Education for Sustainable Development, which has 17 member bodies. Why does the Executive appear to be blocking attempts to get environmental education embedded in its legislation? Why does it apparently want to exclude from its policies real commitment to environmental education, especially to outdoor education, which is in almost terminal decline in Scotland?
I will quote extensively from a letter written by Simon Pepper in December of last year to The Scotsman. It states:
"Regulation plays its part—pollution control, development control, mountains of environmental legislation. But these are all brakes, constraining bads, not promoting goods. The key is the knowledge, understanding, attitudes, skills and behaviour of people making the decisions in every context—home, club, business, local authority, agency, and central government."
The minister paid lip service to that in his speech, but, as the letter states,
"To contribute to a new development culture, we all need to learn. Sustainable development education—at all levels—is vital.
However, in schools we are still educating young people as if this is not an issue; as if the needs of society are unchanged; as if they can go on pursuing development patterns which are unsustainable. Education has to take a new approach, to develop informed citizens of the future, able to make a difference.
The Executive has been under pressure recently to include sustainable development in its national priorities for the formal education sector. They fudged it, claiming to include sustainable development but referring only obliquely to this as something achieved by teaching pupils ‘interdependence with other members of their neighbourhood and society'.
This is a wholly admirable priority but it misses the point of humanity's dependence on nature and natural processes—the most fundamental of our future needs if we are to have a society at all, let alone a fair, inclusive one. In reinventing the meaning of sustainable development—and his own Government's commitment to it—to suit the needs of a different political agenda, the Education Minister"
made
"a dangerous mistake."
I move amendment S1M-1694.1, to leave out from "and commends" to end and insert:
"recognises that conserving and protecting environmental resources is the key to ensuring that the welfare of future generations is not compromised by present day activities and, in order to ensure that sustainable development is placed at the centre of all Scottish Executive policies and programmes, calls upon the Executive (a) to adopt urgently comprehensive indicators of sustainable development and to measure progress against these indicators annually, (b) to set specific targets for a 10% reduction in road traffic by 2010, for 22% of electricity sold to be from wind, hydro and wave renewable energy sources by 2010, for conversion of 20% of agricultural land to organic production by 2010 and for recycling of 30% of municipal waste by 2010, (c) to adopt the recommendations of the Transport and the Environment Committee on telecommunication mast developments, (d) to set up an independent inquiry into sea cage fish farming within two months, (e) to exclude waste-to-energy incineration schemes under the Renewables Obligation (Scotland), (f) to institute bi-monthly meetings of the Ministerial Group on Sustainable Scotland, with publication of its minutes and (g) to carry out an annual environmental audit of its Programme for Government."
I welcome the chance to debate the environment and how it relates to the Scottish Executive's social and economic goals. Despite criticism in the chamber today, the Executive has made some encouraging progress in several areas since the partnership agreement was signed. However, it must strive for more progress in other areas, especially in relation to institutional changes and the need to set and achieve targets.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats believe that the Executive has made good progress by securing national park status for two areas of Scotland, after 50 years of MPs at Westminster failing to do so. I hope that the parks will become a positive example of how economic, social and environmental demands can be managed in an integrated way. Local communities have widely welcomed the setting up of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, which includes part of my constituency. They have especially welcomed the fact that they will be represented on the management boards, which will therefore be able to take account of the communities' needs in order to make the parks sustainable and to give them a future.
Genuine attention has been given to the implications of climate change. We should welcome the Executive's commitment to an 18 per cent increase in renewable energy over the next 10 years; in particular, I welcome its commitment to wind and wave power development in my constituency.
It is not enough to say that nothing is being done; real changes are being made. As Mr Harper pointed out, we at least have a Government commitment to tackle Scotland's appalling record on landfill, with funding to back it up. In my constituency, Argyll and Bute Council is leading the way in sustainable landfill and recycling. Inside the next two years, almost all the waste in Argyll and Bute will be processed through a composting regime at Lochgilphead. Argyll and Bute is doing well and this year has been given £3 million in level-playing-field support to assist that private finance initiative project.
As the minister pointed out, the Scottish Executive has made significant progress on fuel poverty, with better insulation for homes and free central heating for our old-age pensioners.
Although we are making progress in those areas, the Executive needs to up its game on targets and indicators of progress, as various speakers have highlighted. If indicators are good enough for Westminster, they should be good enough for Holyrood. Although I accept that the impact of fiscal measures makes indicators for some factors inappropriate, there is no such problem in many other areas. The minister should be aware that the former Strathclyde region had a set of indicators for sustainability as far back as 1995. However, I welcome the minister's comments both on the issue and on how the Executive will address the need for setting targets and achieving them.
In summary, I welcome the progress that has been made, but I am aware that that was from a low baseline. Although many of the commitments are the result of European requirements, further steps must be taken to make environmental factors not just added value or optional extras, but core commitments in all policy areas. I do not doubt the commitment of ministers to that, but I would welcome signs that institutional changes are occurring and that the Executive will deliver on the minister's commitments.
I am slightly nervous about speaking, as the last time I spoke on sustainable development I lost a page of my notes. My speech was consequently neither sustained nor developed. I hope that I shall do better today.
I have no doubt that the Executive is committed to promoting sustainable development. What I am concerned about is the fact that that message is not getting across. Ministers are implementing a number of projects and initiatives across a range of policy areas, all of which should be commended. My worry is that the approach is too fragmented and ambiguous. The arguments for sustainable development have already been won, and what is needed from the Government is a greater commitment and clearer leadership in putting its policies into practice.
I am concerned that an unintended consequence of making the so-called WET—waste, energy and travel—issues a Government priority is that sustainable development is pigeon-holed and marginalised as a solely environmental issue. Sustainable development is an ethos; it is an approach that should influence all policies and should be implemented in all sectors and departments. I shall focus on one of those sectors—education.
When the Scottish advisory group on sustainable development was wound up in 1999, it suggested 10 action points for the Scottish Parliament. One was to
"put sustainable development at the heart of education and education at the heart of sustainable development."
That is a clear message, but it is not the message that pupils, teachers or parents are receiving in schools.
What does Mr Macintosh feel was the clear message that he sent out during the stage 2 debate on the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, when he voted for neither the SNP's nor the Green party's amendment to embed sustainable development in the bill?
I lodged my own amendment on sustainable development during the passage of that bill, as I am sure that Robin Harper remembers. I shall come back to that. I agree with much of what Bruce Crawford and Murray Tosh have said.
Setting up the ministerial group on sustainable development was an excellent step. Why is the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs not on that group? The Deputy Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs answered that question for me by saying that the minister can sit on the group whenever he wants to. However, he is not a permanent member. That is an example of the Executive sending out a mixed message, possibly reflecting the fact that sustainable development is not at the heart of all our thinking.
When we talk about sustainable development, we often think of climate change and protection of the environment. Sustainable development is about such issues—it is about petrol pump protests, floods at Murrayfield and dwindling cod stocks—but it is about much more. It is about tackling poverty and reducing inequality; it is about empowering people to take control of their lives; it is about realising that the decisions that each of us makes affect our lives and futures and the lives of those around us, both near and far. If we are to accept and enjoy a sustainable way of life, we must give young people the knowledge and skills to do so.
We must recognise that the Scottish education system is an obstacle to that. Our conventions and our traditional focus on academic achievement can work against the ethos of sustainable development. In particular, the emphasis that we place on exams and qualifications diminishes the importance of cross-curricular subjects such as sustainable development. One of the most interesting outcomes of the Scottish Qualifications Authority debacle—although we have yet to take advantage of it—was that it demonstrated how displaced our preoccupation with exams and qualifications is. I quote the wise words of my colleague, Peter Peacock:
"The education system is only in part about teaching children to be literate and numerate. An understanding of sustainable development is a vital component of education for citizenship; the realisation that what we do today has an impact upon what we have to live with in the future."
Modern studies and environmental studies should be an examinable part of the curriculum, but we need to develop a much broader approach—a whole-school ethos—in which pupils are involved in decision making.
Please wind up now.
To make that happen, the Executive has to provide clear leadership to counter the inertia and conservatism of the system.
I will try to wind up now.
Quickly, please.
I do not doubt that we are heading in the right direction. I can point to two excellent documents that are out for consultation—"Promoting the International Dimension in Scottish Schools" and "Education for Citizenship"—which will promote and foster the sustainable approach. However, in the recent document "5-14 National Curriculum Guidelines", the chapter on sustainable development was missing.
We need to give more support to sustainable development policies. That aim needs to be explicit, coherent and comprehensive and I look forward to work by the Scottish Executive that will help that to happen.
Sam Galbraith's motion is indeed fine and genuine. It is unfortunate that he has left the chamber, because I was going to suggest that, if he becomes a bit more gracious and answers questions when they are asked, he, too, might be described as fine and genuine one day.
The Parliament should affirm its commitment to sustainable development and recognise, as the minister's motion states,
"the importance of sustainable development to achieving social justice".
However, the rightness of Bruce Crawford's amendment cannot be denied. Everyone in the Parliament and beyond must recognise that we have a great deal of work to do, in many fields, on sustainable development. Social inclusion must be at the heart of that. Kenneth Macintosh was right to use the quotations that he did to illustrate the fact that we can become a sustainable society only if we put people at the heart of our society.
Last year, a Scottish Natural Heritage paper spoke of achieving social well-being and equality through sustainable development—that must be the bedrock of any sustainable development policy. That is why I have some concerns about the Housing (Scotland) Bill. The bill gave us a wonderful opportunity to put sustainable development at the heart of legislation that would be of great importance to our communities. The policy memorandum says that the bill is intended to contribute to high-quality and affordable houses to rent and to purchase, and to improve the quality of Scotland's housing and deliver decent housing options for all. I am afraid, however, that the bill will not achieve that. We have ended up with a watered-down version of those great intentions. The bill deals with social housing, the right to buy and not a lot else. Except for a small increase in the powers of local authorities to make grants for improvements in the private sector and a tiny improvement in the tolerable standard, the bill fails to deliver.
The tolerable standard was introduced as far back as 1969. We need radical changes to any level of tolerable standard in housing if we are to make a difference. I think that 1969 is an appropriate time to look back to. If my memory serves me right, the Scottish Office report on sustainable development suggested a 30-year programme. We can look back at the 1960s, which was 30 years ago, and see the results of the bad housing decisions that were made then and that have resulted in absolutely appalling living conditions for many people in this country. They have also resulted in fuel poverty, which we are debating in the chamber tomorrow. All those issues are sustainable development issues. We have houses in Scotland that people cannot afford to heat and houses that people cannot afford to live in.
By chance, a magazine was delivered to me this morning. It says that, in a two-bedroom flat in Easterhouse that was built in the 1960s, heating, lighting and cooking costs the resident £35 a week. It also points out that, in a two-bedroom house in Easterhouse that has recently been completed to half-decent standards, heating, lighting and cooking costs only £13 a week. I cannot think of a better way to promote sustainable development than for the Scottish Parliament to decide to bite the bullet and get on with creating a housing bill that will truly make a difference to the lives of people in our community and will eradicate fuel poverty. That is not about saying that we will give all pensioners central heating if they agree to the stock transfer proposals.
We have to admit that mistakes were made in the 1960s and agree that we cannot afford to make them again. We have to look forward and set ourselves indicators and targets—one cannot measure one's grand ideas unless one measures their implementation. I urge members to support Bruce Crawford's amendment.
I warmly welcome today's debate. It does not seem a year since we had the first major debate on this subject. I welcome the positive remarks that Sam Galbraith made, particularly on the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland and on its new members. I further welcome the civic forum debate on the matter, which should be useful.
On as vast a subject as sustainable development, it is possible in this debate to mention only a few things. One heartening thing that I wish to mention is a conference on renewable energies that is now taking place in Aberdeen—at least, I hope that it is. I look towards Robin Harper in mentioning that. That conference has brought together experts from industry and universities—people from abroad and from this country—to consider not only renewable energy sources, but how we can develop the appropriate technologies.
The considerable expertise of offshore oil and gas concerns has been particularly interesting, as has the way in which they can apply that expertise to harness renewable energies. I wish to thank members of the cross-party Scottish Parliament renewable energy group—I am not making a particular plug for the group's co-conveners—and especially Rob Forrest of the Scottish renewables forum. The group is trying hard to raise MSPs' awareness about sustainable development issues.
Local area plans have been developed from the document "National Waste Strategy: Scotland". I attended a meeting in Stirling at the weekend. I gather that the area waste plan drawn up for the area—the Forth valley—is the first that has been developed. There are currently 12 of them in Scotland. It was pleasing because, although there is still much apathy—on which I share the sentiments that members have expressed—there are also many enthusiastic people. Many people want to get going with various plans, including plans for composting and recycling.
Although we have to wait until the area plans are in place, we could get going on some of the related issues. In my area, 3,000 people are involved in a composting experiment in Dunblane. There is also the Kippen community composting initiative, and various other schemes are starting up, using the landfill tax money constructively and to good effect.
A few issues arose in the discussions on the area waste plan. The first was the time scale. The process has been very quick. Unfortunately, the plan that has been produced is not terribly clear to people in the community. We have asked that it be taken back and made a lot easier to understand—that must happen before we can expect the community to participate.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and its partners have found it difficult to find the baseline assessment data on what happens to waste in a community. They have found out what the council is uplifting, but information on commercial waste is difficult to obtain. The issue becomes complex when specialist waste streams, including those for batteries, tyres and hospital waste, are considered. In the Forth valley area plan, those matters are being left; they will be considered at a later date. I suggest that that is not the way forward. Unless we have a co-ordinated, baseline approach, the Forth valley waste strategy document will not have as good an effect as it could.
There is much public concern about incineration, which, several years ago, was a particular local issue in the central belt. There is no way that the people in my constituency would want an incinerator to be located locally unless we had stringent controls and knew a lot more about dioxins and were assured that there were no dangers from them.
I gather that, if people go in for composting and recycling and collect much more waste before rubbish gets to an incinerator, the incineration process can become much more specialised. I suggest that research into incineration is another urgent need that the Executive and the UK Government should be considering, to ensure that we are incinerating material in the safest and best possible way.
Another big issue that was raised at the meeting is the importance of bringing business on board and forcing it to think much more about reducing packaging so that there is not as much waste in the first place.
Finally, a big message that emerged was the need for much more co-ordination. Obviously, there are good points at central Government level, as Sam Galbraith outlined, but there are also good points at local government level. Local government needs help and resources and needs to have more flexibility. I gather that compulsory competitive tendering is still an obstacle. Audit reports such as "Benchmarking refuse collection" should address the broader, sustainable aspects of the issue rather than just efficiency.
In speaking to the subject of sustainable development, I am reminded of the words of Sir Martin Gilbert, who wrote in his history of the 20th century, "Challenge to Civilisation":
"From fish in the oceans, to trees in the rain forests, the failure of human restraints has begun to lead to irreversible changes in the ability of the planet to sustain the existing level of well being. In many areas of the globe that well being is itself minimal."
He goes on to say that
"Damage to the environment and the rapid consumption—as well as the destruction—of the world's natural resources, adversely affect the affluent, the comfortable, the poor and the destitute alike."
It follows that not only must development be sustainable but life itself must be sustainable and sustained. With that in mind, I wish to raise one issue. In years to come, conflicts may arise out of competition for water, or possibly because of humanitarian disasters such as flooding and drought. Either way, Scotland may suddenly be faced with requests for the export of water. As we use a little over 1 per cent of Scotland's waters for our domestic requirements, it appears that there is a huge abundance of water that is surplus to our immediate requirements. If requests are made to Scotland, either in the name of humanity—if thousands are about to die from dehydration—or for commercial reasons, the question is whether we will be able and sufficiently prepared to respond.
If we had not completed the necessary studies and research in depth, we would rightly be condemned for lack of vision and foresight. As it is, we provide water in the form of bottled water, for which demand is growing widely, and, of course, in the form of whisky for export, so why should we not provide water in bulk if and when we are called on to do so? If we do, there will be more than one form of water of life.
Scotland has a huge reservoir of ability, talent and expertise. The minister is well aware of the distinguished work of Professor George Fleming, who is professor of water engineering and environmental management in the department of engineering at the University of Strathclyde. I accept that sustainable water resources in Scotland must address water shortages in east coast and Borders areas and that an integrated water resource strategy must form a blueprint of sustainable water policy, which will involve integrated river basin management.
Does what Lord James has just said support the argument for having one water authority rather than three in Scotland?
The move is welcome and helpful. However, water policy must also embrace water exports, as sustainable change can be supported only if we have a healthy economy. Water exports may represent an important economic opportunity. We have to ensure that the necessary framework is in place to achieve that.
Major developments are taking place in other parts of Europe, for example between Norway and Rotterdam. There is a growing interest in the Arab world in the possibility of receiving bulk water shipments, as its water resources become more and more expensive. A major project is taking place, supported by Buro Happold, in which major flexible floating structures with a huge capacity for water are being tested as a serious move to commercialising water exports.
It should be remembered that, in future years, cars and buses will be highly energy efficient, probably using fuel cells and lightweight construction as part of sustainable transport. Therefore, the need for an integrated, efficient road, rail and water transport network remains a central part of sustainable change if we are to ensure the economic prosperity that supports a sustainable environment.
Please wind up.
In conclusion, I appeal to the minister, as a fair-minded man, to put in place the necessary research on the subject. On the basis of averages, there will come a time of emergency when tens of thousands of people may die from dehydration. At that time, I hope that it will not be said that we have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.
It is always illuminating to listen to Lord James Douglas-Hamilton speak. I endorse his recommendation that we consider the export of one of Scotland's last and greatest assets—Scotland's water. As history unfolds, that resource may perhaps be found to be more valuable than Scotland's oil.
The debate concerns the meaning of the phrase sustainable development. What exactly does it mean? The odd thing about it is that all of us, from all parties, can support it. That does not occur every day on every issue.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton reminded us of Sir Martin Gilbert's fine words. He set out a fine exposition—indeed, a statement of principle. I suggest, however, that that statement of principle has become rather sullied: the ideal has become policy and, from time to time, the policy has, perhaps, become an excuse.
It is very convenient for politicians to be able to argue that we are in favour of sustainable development. It sounds very encouraging, but what does it actually mean? I suggest that sustainable development means what we want it to mean. It prevents us from grappling with the real problems of bureaucracy, of failed policy and of catharsis on the part of the Executive that must be tackled, especially in the rural communities with which I am concerned.
I have been grappling with some such policies for some time now. I shall give one example. A landfill site has been proposed in Strathnairn. It is opposed by everybody in the community of Strathnairn. I will oppose it with all vigour. Why is the landfill site necessary? Because it is not possible to use the Longman site to a greater extent, because the former convener of Highland Council did not fight that battle, because of opposition from some environmental groups. Perhaps he felt that it was wrong to take on the arguments of those groups, but other communities in the Highlands may now be paying the costs for that failure, which is a failure to address the arguments as they are and the facts as we face them.
In facing the current crisis in fishing, members of our fishing community have the dilemma of deciding whether they should go to fish in pursuance of a so-called conservation policy that says that they must catch immature haddock. Imagine what it is like to be a fisherman when the net comes out of the water full of immature haddock. That is the great conservation policy that has come from the Commission. No wonder fishermen are coming here tomorrow to demonstrate their concerns. They deserve to have their plea for a tie-up scheme considered far more sympathetically than it has been up till now.
The aggregates tax will punish Scotland by imposing a rate of tax per aggregate tonne that is twice as high as that in England. What kind of policy is that? It will lead to the closure of small quarries. When that happens, lorries will have to travel further. There will be more, bigger lorries travelling more miles on our roads. What kind of sustainable policy is that? We have no sympathy at all from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Treasury, with whom I have long corresponded on this issue. Not one whit. They refuse to accept that their information is wrong.
You are tapping the microphone, Presiding Officer. I hope I have another 30 seconds.
That was a 30-second warning.
Finally, I will address the point that the minister, who is now absent, patently failed to deal with. Motorists in the west Highlands, in the north generally and in many other rural areas face the awful situation of trying to sustain life with the necessity of the motor car. They have to pay a penalty of 5p or 6p extra per litre on top of a fuel tax and fuel cost that is already the highest in Europe. I do not think that that is necessary in the interests of the environment. I do not see tailbacks in Tongue, pollution in Poolewe, gridlock in Gorthleck or cars tailing back from Mallaig to Fort William every morning as they go down the freeway that is otherwise known as the A860—the only single-track trunk route in Britain.
I hope that the Executive will finally stop spouting fine words and start to address real problems, some of which I have touched on briefly.
I will give a 30-second warning. We are going to be tight for time if every member who wishes to speak is to get in.
I welcome this debate. I commend the Executive for raising it. I also commend the Executive for what it has done so far and for what it has said.
I am not criticising this particular Executive if I say that all Governments are much better at talking a good game than they are at doing anything, particularly in relation to the environment. Governments are of the Ally McLeod—members may remember him—school of management: lots of good speeches that lead to disaster.
I will make three points. The first may appear to be trivial, but I am all for practising what one preaches. I understand that there is a question over the wood that is to be used in our future home at Holyrood. Bovis Lend Lease, the contractor, recommends that its project managers specify that wood should come from the Forest Stewardship Council scheme, which is the only recognised scheme. I further understand that the worthy ladies and gentlemen in charge of our Parliament building are trying to use sustainable material but, for some reason, they have not committed themselves to supporting that scheme. We should do the right thing as well as say the right thing.
Secondly, one of the defects of democracy is that it is short term—people are worried about winning the next election. While that is understandable—we all have a vested interest in the next election—it is difficult to develop long-term programmes. One way of getting over that—and over the innate business of us v them, which we have regrettably inherited from Westminster and which many of us hoped we would get away from—would be for the minister to get together representatives of all of the six parties in the chamber as well as other relevant people and start work on an agreed Scottish environmental policy. Such a policy should involve real expenditure over a considerable period of time. The parties could not say during the next election campaign, "Oh, this silly Executive spent £10 million on this when it could have spent £10 million on repairing some schools" or whatever if they were all hooked into that policy. If people were committed to an agreed programme, we might get somewhere in the long term.
We might also get over the NIMBY problem that arises all over the place. One of the bright young men who write for the benefit of the Liberal Democrats and, doubtless, for other parties, told me about a new thing—a BANANA. Other members may know about BANANAs, but it appears that they have outpaced NIMBY. It stands for build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone. If we had an all-party group, we might get over those problems as well.
Such a group should also consider local government. Those of us who have local government experience will recall being confronted with the dilemma of whether to put a little bit of money into ensuring that the number of teachers did not have to be reduced or into improving recycling. Over and over again, local authorities keep the teachers and do not do the recycling. Local government must get real financial support to be able to work together so that, for example, paper recycling becomes viable.
Thirdly, on the joined-up government argument, recycling and other environmental schemes could produce a great many jobs but, on the face of it, they do not quite pay for themselves and therefore they are not set up. If we could bring together funds for training, development, job creation, environmental proposals and so on, those sorts of schemes could be paid for. We would greatly improve the environment and create thousands and thousands of jobs. However, we do not take that approach because, despite the warm words, we do not have joined-up government.
Donald Gorrie is a hard act to follow and I am not a greengrocer.
We have talked a lot of things down today, but there are many positive aspects to what the Executive is doing—the national parks, the national wave strategy, strategies on beaches and cleaner air, the insulation of 40,000 homes, free central heating and strategic environmental assessments. In addition, working in partnership with our Westminster colleagues, the Executive has cut taxes—in a targeted way—with the 2p cut for ultra-low sulphur petrol, the 3p cut for ultra-low sulphur diesel and the cut in vehicle excise duty for smaller and more environmentally friendly vehicles. There has also been the climate change programme, which is the area on which I would like to focus in the short time that I have—especially in relation to Scottish hydro schemes.
As members know, the debate on renewables is very active, and rightly so. I sit on the Scottish utilities forum and am the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee, so I am obviously building up my knowledge and understanding in that area. It is an issue that I would like to develop with the Scottish ministerial team. Something that has concerned me, as a result of meetings that I have had, is the treatment of hydro assets under the climate change levy and under our obligations on renewable energy.
I would like an explanation—perhaps not this afternoon but in writing later—on why our hydro assets are considered in the same way, environmentally, as coal-fired generation. That does not fit with a positive sustainable strategy. We need to re-examine that and take a commonsense approach. It would also be helpful to know whether the UK has decided to adopt the 10MW threshold, which was central to EU directives but which the EU has subsequently dropped.
Because of the geography of Scotland, the cost base of hydro schemes in Scotland is very different from that elsewhere in Europe. We have a large engineering infrastructure that requires to be maintained to get the volume of water necessary to create the load factors that we need to generate electricity economically and effectively. That, arguably, is in stark contrast to the case of some of our European colleagues. Will the Scottish Executive take into account the different approaches that are taken in Scotland and Europe?
The changing economics of the energy market are very important. In that market, wholesale prices have dropped by 20 per cent. That has an impact on economic decisions on the refurbishment of hydro capacity in Scotland. I am very concerned by the fact that the 3p per unit price that applies to other markets and other forms of renewable energy does not apply to investment in and refurbishment of hydro schemes. Scottish and Southern Energy plc has frozen its refurbishment projects. If all that work stops, we will lose a great deal of capacity. SSE reckons that 1,600MW will be lost if we do not continue with a refurbishment programme. That is equivalent to the output of 700 or 800 windmills, which would have an effect on the environment as well.
We must not look the gift horse in the mouth: we have our own hydro and we should treat it more fairly. I look to the Executive to take a softer view of hydro and to take a more sensible economic approach to it. That would be a Scottish solution to Scottish problems and delivering it would be a great benefit to the Parliament.
Many other things could be said in this debate, but I have chosen to focus on one particular aspect. I hope that the minister can respond positively on some of the issues that I have raised.
I would like to follow up on the points on recycling that have been made by others—by Robin Harper in particular. It is a matter of shame that we in Scotland recycle so little, that there is so much waste and that we are so far behind many comparable nations. The statistics show a substantial difference between Scotland and Denmark in terms of what is recycled.
As someone who assiduously gathers in bottles and papers for recycling, I appreciate that the benefits of recycling are arguable, given that I often go to recycle those bottles and papers in a vehicle that uses fossil fuel, perhaps negating any benefit from the recycling. Recycling has to be dealt with strategically. It is not just a matter for individuals. There has to be an overall strategy, and that has to come from the Executive.
The fundamental flaw at present is that we cannot consider recycling unless we consider the whole creation of the product. An absurdity in the devolution settlement is that this Parliament and the Executive are charged with responsibility for dealing with recycling, but responsibility for the definition of product packaging is reserved to Westminster.
Does Mr MacAskill recognise that most of the legislation relating to packaging and so on comes from Europe? In which case, what is his argument in respect of Westminster?
The Westminster issue is important. Europe lays down directives that the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament must follow. It is an absurdity for us to want to have a recycling strategy if we cannot decide on the nature of what is first put into the system. The logical end of Andy Kerr's argument is to give recycling over to Europe. If he is saying that the Scottish Parliament is capable of dealing with recycling, it follows that it is also capable of dealing with the definition of packaging, bearing in mind the parameters that are set down by EU directives. However, at the moment, expecting the Parliament and the Executive to deal with recycling matters without being able to deal with packaging is to try to address the outproduct without being able to consider the inproduct.
My second point relates to balance in the definition of sustainable development. Too often, people see sustainable development as retaining and sustaining; as setting in aspic; as keeping matters frozen. There must be a balance. If some areas are to experience economic development, regeneration and social justice, decisions will have to be taken that are not environmentally friendly but are necessary.
I recall being in Stornoway at the height of the fuel crisis. Many people have argued that we should have kept the fuel duty escalator so that the price of fossil fuels keeps going up, but areas such as Stornoway are haemorrhaging. When I read the Stornoway Gazette & West-Coast Advertiser, I noticed that it was the anniversary of the evacuation of St Kilda. Unless we bear in mind the economic needs of many areas of Scotland, some areas will continue to be depopulated. In some areas, we must ensure that economic development takes priority over environmental protection. It is a matter of balance, which must be dealt with on a local basis, yet taking a national perspective.
I offer my regrets to Elaine Murray, who sat through the debate hoping to speak but was ultimately beaten by the fact that other members overran. We move to the winding-up speeches.
One can tell that members have returned invigorated after the break—some of us with snow on our boots—because we have had an incredibly wide-ranging discussion. Today, we have covered bottled water, immature haddock, dumps, BANANAs, beer, the next election, tailbacks and even the evacuation of St Kilda. By way of summing up, I will break all the rules and make two points.
My first point follows on from what Kenny MacAskill—who has just left us—said about development versus conservation. There has been an on-going problem, not just in the Highlands but all over—I see that Fergus Ewing knows what I am about to say—with Scottish Natural Heritage. It is not that SNH is wrong in what it is trying to do, but that it does not always take local communities, businesses, people, farmers and crofters with it. If members were to attend any planning meeting across Scotland, they would hear councillors making accusations about SNH being heavy handed about the greater spotted something or other. We often read about such things in local papers. We have to tidy up that approach. SNH does good work, but some of its public relations could be better.
My second point concerns tourism. I come from what has been nicknamed MAMBA country. MAMBA stands for miles and miles—I do not know what the B stands for—and the A stands for all. We have something that is key to sustainability—the Highlands' unique scenery and fauna. This morning, driving down the A9 just north of Kessock bridge, I was blessed with the wonderful sight of a red kite high over the dual carriageway. I live within golf-ball hitting distance of badgers, buzzards, otters and even golden eagles. That is something that we have and that will be there for ever.
The definition of sustainability is about mankind living, working and improving himself, although not at the cost of future generations. Fergus Ewing said that sustainable development is something that we make up as we go along, but I think that my definition is fair. Tourism is a sustainable industry for the Highlands and other parts of Scotland and it will be there for keeps if we manage it correctly. It is all about playing to our strengths.
I apologise to Fergus Ewing, but I must take one small pot shot at him. He has made some play, very adroitly, of the fact that the Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are paying £20,000 each for a group of senior civil servants from the Nordic countries to attend a conference at Skibo Castle.
In my view, that money is extremely well spent and is very much to the benefit of my constituents. If we are talking about tourism, we are talking about getting people from the Nordic countries and all over the world to come to the Highlands. If Fergus Ewing was going to have a conference and wanted to encourage people to come to the Highlands, would he take them to the shoddiest or the best place? He would take them to the best, and that is Skibo Castle.
If I may, I will comment on what has been said so far.
Apart from the plugs, stick to sustainability, Mr Stone.
I did not think that you had spotted that Presiding Officer.
We listen.
Bruce Crawford is to be congratulated on mentioning Albert Einstein in the debate. In many ways, we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. The group of ministers will examine ways in which to tally how we are getting on in the coming period. That scotches Bruce Crawford's and Murray Tosh's arguments, well made speeches though they were.
I am not sure whether Murray Tosh is aware of this, but I served on COSLA's LA21 committee. Notwithstanding the fine efforts of COSLA, we were all keenly aware—and COSLA would agree with this—that it is up to local authorities to deliver LA21. Much of our time was spent auditing what was happening in Scotland's 32 local authorities. While we all sympathise with COSLA's situation, which is pretty grave at this stage, I do not think that Murray Tosh would want to overplay it, although I fancy that he detected that it was a fairly handy weapon with which to beat the minister.
As Andy Kerr said, we are doing well. Our young people are far more aware of environmental issues than my generation was. Look at what we are getting back on to the railways these days. I have one last example: our beaches and how much cleaner they are. When one swam off the beaches of Scotland some years ago, one was only going through the motions. Now, it is quite different. I support the Executive's motion.
One of the points that has come out in this debate, to which I would like to pay tribute, is the enormous amount of good work that has been done on LA21 in Scotland by organisations such as Lothian and Edinburgh Environmental Partnership in Edinburgh, Working for Environmental Community Action Now in Fife and the Business and Environment Network in Midlothian and West Lothian. It would be appalling if the backing for those organisations, through the fault of either local authorities or the Executive, withered on the vine, because it is important that we make progress on developing sustainability in Scotland at every possible level.
I will refer briefly to what Sylvia Jackson said about incinerators. I wish to make clear what is happening in the rest of the world. In the United States, 400 proposals for incinerators are being blocked. European countries across the board are turning away from incineration. Even in England there is a policy shift away from incineration as a way of dealing with waste. In terms of investment, encouraging local authorities to take this stop-gap measure to meet European directives on landfill would lock us into a wasteful, polluting and thoroughly unsustainable waste policy for 25 years, stifling any progress that could be made in recycling for a quarter of a century. We would be the least advanced country in Europe in 25 years' time.
I will address a few of the points in my amendment that come under the general heading of targets. The target of 22 per cent of electricity to be derived from renewable energy is restricted in my amendment to what has already been recommended to the Executive by several organisations. The Executive will be considering that at the moment. In fact, we could have an aspirational target that is considerably higher—up to 30 per cent—if we include all other sources of renewable energy.
The organic conversion target of 20 per cent was included simply because, in the not-too-distant future, I hope that the Executive will have a recommendation for the conversion of at least 20 per cent of land in Scotland to organic status.
In the last few minutes I will address a couple of other concerns. If the Executive's response to the Transport and the Environment Committee's telecommunications report is an indicator of future responses to committee reports on environmental matters, we are in for a hard time—years of closing stable doors after horses have bolted, years of wasting committee time, years of too-little-too-late policies, years of Scotland stewing in a smelly environmental backwater. It is intolerable that we should be waiting for action on this matter more than a year after the Transport and the Environment Committee produced its report. I would like to add to the words of many others about that concern. The Executive should address that matter as soon as possible.
It would be intolerable if the same dilatory attitude were to inform Executive inaction in respect of the inquiry into sea cage fish farming. The Executive has been asked by two committees to set up an inquiry with all celerity. I expect a sense of urgency and some acknowledgement that the prospect of the extinction of wild salmon on the west coast is not to be tolerated. We need to have the report in our hands by June this year if we are to be in a position to take any necessary action.
Finally, I ask in my amendment for access to the minutes of the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland. It would be nice for Parliament and the committees to know what is being discussed in that group and to have at least some group minutes. The group should not meet in a sort of private cabinet capacity and once a year reveal something of what might have been discussed.
I commend my amendment. It will take us forward even further than the Conservative and SNP amendments.
Murray Tosh has five minutes to wind up for the Conservatives.
I think that everyone who has participated in the debate has agreed that there has been progress. There might be differences about the scope and direction of that progress, but I think that we agree that some things have been happening.
Many members have referred to good practice in Scotland as a whole or in their local areas. Much agreement has emerged about how we need to proceed in future and about some of the directions in which we might attempt to travel.
I have watched with fascination the endless flood of notes descending down the gangway all afternoon to the minister. I hope that those notes are all on recycled paper or at least that they will subsequently be recycled. I am sure that the minister will have a great deal to respond to.
They are all recycled.
In Sam Galbraith's case, I am sure that most of it is recycled.
Very cutting.
I want to pick out one or two of the points that have been made.
I hope that the minister will respond to the point that Robin Harper and George Lyon made about the need for good statistics, for indicators, for targets to be set and measures to be achieved.
Andy Kerr made a useful point about how we assess hydroelectricity. I hope that the minister—listening carefully as he always does when he is not speaking to Jamie Stone—will give Andy Kerr the response for which he asked. It would be useful for us all to have that response, rather than for it to be provided simply to Mr Kerr for his own elucidation. One of the problems when ministers agree to give a member a response is that there is no procedure in place to ensure that all members get the information. Perhaps ministers ought to reflect on that, because a specific point that is raised by a member often has general interest and applicability. I do not think that any harm is done by being open and sharing the information.
Kenneth Macintosh made a good speech. It was sustained and developed this time. He stressed the importance of getting the sustainability agenda into the education system. More needs to be done on that.
I thought that Donald Gorrie was admitting to going bananas at one point, but the purpose of his point was to pursue the need for local government to be centrally involved in the process. That is important. We must not lose sight of it. I do not know what Donald Gorrie would have made of Jamie Stone's somewhat shabby point about local agenda 21, but Robin Harper dealt with that adequately.
Kenny MacAskill completely missed the point about the packaging directives. They are all shaped by European legislation. In a sense, it does not matter whether Westminster, the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly deals with packaging for us, because we will come out with much the same kind of regulations in the long run.
Recycling is important. Robin Harper spoke about it a great deal, as did Sylvia Jackson, who went through her concerns about incineration. I think that Fergus Ewing was the only one in the debate who showed a sort of romantic attachment to landfill.
The opposite.
No, no. He was specifically concerned that we should still use a landfill site that is not now available. Landfill is no longer the answer. How should we dispose of our waste in the future? My concern about the current direction of the Executive's strategy is that proceeding on the basis of the 12 areas may not create streams of material that are sufficiently substantial to make recycling viable. Incinerating huge quantities of material that may not need to be incinerated may be inherent in the strategy.
Recently, I saw a presentation from Scottish Coal. I will not argue its case, because I cannot evaluate it. However, its argument was that a national or sub-national strategy to deal with waste would generate sufficient volumes of material to make recycling effective enough to reduce incineration and landfill to relatively low levels. I wonder whether the Executive is really committed to the localised approach, because I suspect that a regional approach would be viable in much of central Scotland. That would provide greater volumes of material that we could deal with sustainably.
I am happy to conclude by restating my earlier point. The profile of the issue needs to be raised. The debate has been good, but I am rather sad at the number of members who have not attended. If we are to raise the profile of the issue, the Executive must put sustainable development at the heart of all its strategies and all its work. If it does that, I am sure that it will have the Parliament's whole-hearted support.
I call Fiona McLeod to speak for the Scottish National Party. You have seven minutes—it would help if you shaved a bit off that.
Certainly. Sustainable development applies to debates too. I will follow up Murray Tosh's concluding remarks by saying why the debate is important. We can relate the debate to real lives by considering current events, such as yesterday's weather chaos. Many weather patterns that we suffer nowadays can be attributed to climate change. Furthermore, the introduction of industrial practices into a natural process could be part of the explanation—although it is not entirely to blame—for the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Just last night, I learned that 70 per cent of food in the United Kingdom is produced on only 20 per cent of farms. Society is turning its back on nature, and nature is giving us our due.
We must go beyond words and ensure that action is taken. Several members have discussed many of the Government's commitments, so I will not go into great detail on them. The advisory group on sustainable development's 10-point action plan was also mentioned. It was encouraging to hear that—two years after that plan was produced—the Government will finally take up most of those 10 points.
"Making it work together" and "Working together for Scotland" referred to sustainable development. We have heard that the Executive has a commitment to sustainable development and that that is central to its policies, particularly on transport and the environment. That was in "Making it work together", which was published in September 1999. That document preceded the Transport (Scotland) Bill, which the SNP and the Green party tried to amend to embed in it sustainable development in transport. The Executive refused to accept that change.
If the Executive says that it is committed to sustainable development then fails to put those words into practice when it has the opportunity, that tells us that the Executive believes in words rather than action. Today, the minister said that sustainable development would be embedded as a central policy of the Government. I am pleased to hear that, but I hope that that was not another of the minister's technical terms, like those that he used this morning when he gave evidence to the Transport and the Environment Committee. I hope that we get action, rather than embedding Government commitments.
Many members referred to the ministerial working group and asked questions about it. They asked about when it has met, what it has done and when the Parliament will hear about it. It is essential that members become part of that process and hear what is happening. Talking about a ministerial working group on sustainable Scotland but not reporting to Parliament on it shows that the Executive is all talk and no action.
What happened at that ministerial working group in regard to the indicators that we are all waiting for? We have heard how long we have had to wait for those indicators. Today, the minister came close to telling us that we might get 40 indicators and that we might get them some time. We would like to know when we are going to get them and what they will be. We want to know whether the ministerial working group has provided guidance on how business in Scotland should take sustainable development into account in its everyday working practices.
I was surprised that no other member raised the Friends of the Earth Scotland report card, which I am sure we all received today and which would not make happy reading for the minister. I pick a few issues that have been given unhappy, unsmiley faces. Mixed waste incineration for energy has been discussed, and it is accepted that that is not a sustainable way of producing energy, yet it is still under consideration in the renewables obligation (Scotland) consultation. The SNP will say no to mixed waste incineration as a form of renewable energy.
The FOES report card talks about indicators—almost everyone has raised that issue today. The SNP amendment is there to ensure that we have a timetable, and that we no longer talk about or fantasise about indicators but produce them. That will mean that we get some work done. In government, the SNP would take that further. We would say that we should start with an audit of the environmental practices in this country, at the end of which we would produce a national environment plan, which would include indicators, targets and the dates by which we would achieve those targets. We could easily put "Must do better" at the end of the FOES report card. We must set dates and targets. We have to act now for the future, not in the future when it is too late.
The Tory amendment talks about further consultation. The SNP would say, "We are sorry—we want action, not further consultation." Murray Tosh talked about the minister repackaging. We do not need more repackaging—we need action and we need it now. I was surprised that the targets in Robin Harper's amendment were not more ambitious, although he upped the ante on them in his speech. Scotland could be far more ambitious in the targets it sets. On the motion, I am sorry, but no commendation can be given for lots of words and no action. There is no amendment from the Liberals. I presume that, in their sustainable fashion, they will vote for the Government's motion. However, George Lyon spoke to our amendment, so we could look forward to the support of the Liberals for it in the vote.
The debate has shown the enormous challenges that sustainable development presents. It is a topic that, as we have seen, covers a wide range of issues—issues such as social justice—that touch on the individual, the family and everyone on the planet. Climate change is at the forefront of our minds. Sustainable development is a subject that requires continuous effort over many years, and it is therefore a task that depends on a commitment. The Scottish Executive has made that commitment. We made it in the first programme for government. We continued that commitment in our second programme for government and we are engaged in maximising the opportunities for sustainable development along that long road.
Commitment is crucial, but it has to be followed through with delivery. Delivery of sustainable development means doing things differently; it does not necessarily mean big spending programmes. For example, the new electricity contract for the Scottish Executive and associated bodies is saving us money. We do not have to pay the climate change levy on our electricity supply. Our supplies will not be generating carbon dioxide. By tempering our specification for electricity supplies to include that wider goal, we have maximised sustainable development.
Andy Kerr talked about small-scale hydro schemes. Those will be eligible for funding from the renewables obligation (Scotland) scheme, but there are no longer any suitable locations to build further large-scale hydro plants because of their significant environmental impact. Andy Kerr made a useful suggestion, which will be taken into consideration in the consultation.
Adopting our greening government policy statement will make everyone in the Scottish Executive face strategic development decisions every day. Recycling, reuse and waste reduction are key objectives. Adopting the necessary practices will reduce our waste costs and improve our environment.
I am happy to accept the thrust of Robin Harper's amendment, which has much in common with the FOES report card that Fiona McLeod referred to. Like Sam Galbraith, I am grateful to Kevin Dunion for his sage and penetrating input to the ministerial group on sustainable Scotland. To answer Kenny MacAskill's point, that group also includes my good colleague Alasdair Morrison.
The group is making progress on many of the issues raised in Robin Harper's amendment, and will be discussing the indicators next month. Renewable energy has been tackled in a number of policy areas, including climate change, the waste strategy and energy policy. The group will meet four or five times a year, and work also continues between those meetings. Next month, we will be publishing a new greening government policy and we expect to report on that annually.
Robin Harper made a number of specific points about biodiversity. Scottish Natural Heritage, whose funding we will increase during the lifetime of this session by a sum total of £40 million, and many other local environmental organisations are fully involved in developing biodiversity action. That is a huge task, which is bringing results, but it requires a change in attitude, not just by SNH but by everyone, and that change in attitude does not depend on money alone.
Kenny MacAskill and Robin Harper both mentioned recycling. As Sam Galbraith said, the strategic waste fund will provide £50.4 million over the next three years to implement area waste plans. The Executive has been talking to big companies such as Boots and Halfords about recycling—that is something that Sylvia Jackson mentioned.
Will the minister confirm that that £50.4 million is going to be devoted to recycling and not to incineration?
The Executive is providing £50.4 million to local authorities over the next three years to help them to implement their area waste plans.
I am glad that Murray Tosh accepts that considerable progress has been made in sustainable development, as set out in our programme for government. He criticised Kenny MacAskill for his speech, but I think that he is guilty of recycling Kenny's amendment from last year's debate on the sustainable development strategy. The Parliament rejected that amendment, and I think that that was a good decision. A bad SNP amendment last year does not become a good Tory amendment this year, even if Murray Tosh moves it much more eloquently than Kenny MacAskill did at the previous debate. We have strong strategies on social exclusion, on transport, on climate change and on waste, all of which are brought together in our programme for government. We do not need another layer of strategy. What is important is action and moving on that.
Murray Tosh accused us of relabelling old bottles, but the Government knows that social justice is dependent on a stable economy and that a stable economy, by its very definition, is a sustainable economy. A market that depends on excessive exploitation of any of the world's resources—people, environment or commodities—has a negative knock-on effect on society. The Government proposals on climate change, the aggregates tax and other changes to fiscal structures will facilitate the natural economic forces to show the real value of sustainability. That is new. As in many other areas of our policy, we have bound together the social and economic benefits to make sustainability a vital part of that equation.
I am glad that the minister has covered so many of the points that were made during the debate. In my speech, I mentioned further education and the need for more interconnectedness so that students can deal with sustainability when they finish their education. Does the minister intend to deal with that point in his response?
If Mr Crawford will give me a chance, I will get on with it.
Murray Tosh raised a specific point about COSLA getting no money and the Scottish civic forum doing it for free. I think that those are separate issues. We supported COSLA to meet the Prime Minister's challenge on the development of local authority agenda 21 plans by the end of 2000, and that task has been accomplished. Scottish civic forum work on Rio plus ten will be paid for. We have allocated £20,000 for that and we are working in partnership with Shell and BP to deliver that. Local authorities will be able to apply to the sustainable action fund for support in implementing local agenda 21 strategies.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made an interesting contribution. Scientific American journal has just published an interesting edition called "Are We Almost Tapped Out?", which shows that his concerns are the subject of considerable scientific study. We look forward to the results.
On Bruce Crawford's point, it is good to see that the SNP recognises the breadth of issues that need to be addressed in sustainable development. It is a huge task for any Government. Sustainable development is not just an environmental issue; it is an issue of breadth of vision and respect for the future. Our programme for government reflects that breadth and I look forward to the SNP supporting us in taking that forward. It is legitimate to ask whether the nats considered the role of education in sustainable development and we are entitled to ask why they have never brought the issue before Parliament.
Sustainable development is a major component of the five-to-14 curriculum, but it is not just formal education that is needed.
Give way.
Order.
We plan to influence all sectors of society with relevant approaches. The major push will be for a public awareness campaign later this year, which many people mentioned.
Globalisation has given us problems to overcome, but it has also provided us with opportunities to see the world in a more positive manner. Interdependency has never been clearer. Reckless exploitation of the planet in one area of the world often has a negative impact on other areas. Careful stewardship and utilisation of the world's abundant resources can have benefits for us all. Fergus Ewing should note that cars in Poolewe produce greenhouse gases too.
A good question is where nationalism fits into an outward-looking and inclusive view of the world. I contend that the answer is nowhere. Internationalism is surely the answer. While the rest of the 21st century world looks beyond the political constructs of the nation state, nationalism, as a philosophy, stands against the tide of history.
I was interested to hear Bruce Crawford quote Einstein. I am happy to quote Albert Einstein too. [Laughter.] Colleagues, wait for it. He said:
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
In conclusion, our attitude to sustainable development is strongly centred on people. It used to be difficult to make people understand the consequences of failure to behave sustainably. I believe that the floods of last year changed that. At a stroke, we made the connection between excessive use of energy, generation of greenhouse gases and devastation of people's homes. Today's debate, therefore, has been vital: it is vital that we maintain that commitment and that we understand our role in sustainable development across the world. It is essential that we continue to work together for the prosperity of Scotland.
I commend the motion to Parliament and ask that it reject all the amendments that have been lodged.