Chamber and committees

I think the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The Scottish National Party has been promising for months that its draft climate change plan would lay out definitively how it intends to reach net zero by 2045, but today’s plan just rehashes existing SNP policies that do nothing to bring down energy bills and it provides no clarity on how it intends to reach the 2045 target.

Families across Scotland are anxious about how much the SNP’s net zero obsession will cost them. Will they be made to rip out their gas boilers in favour of heat pumps? Will they be forced to trade in their petrol vehicle for an electric car? Will the SNP lift its presumption against new oil and gas? The plan answers none of those questions; it is yet another SNP pamphlet that is heavy on rhetoric but light on solutions.

The carbon budgets that the Scottish Government adopted were made in line with the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations. In order to achieve those budgets, the CCC claims that we will need to install 35,000 heat pumps a year by 2030, more than half of our cars will need to be electric by 2035, and cattle and sheep numbers will need to fall by 2 million.

When will the cabinet secretary come clean with the public about the true cost of achieving net zero by 2045? Will she commit to making a revised final plan that focuses on an affordable transition?

Are we getting our £200 million for north-east rail?

It is a year late.

Decisions such as those about the 500MW battery storage plant at Rothienorman should be taken by local planning authorities. Before the cabinet secretary jets off on her latest taxpayer-funded jaunt to sell Scotland’s countryside to the highest bidder—[Interruption.]

To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government will announce a timetable for improvement works on the A96 north of Inverurie, following the publication of its corridor review consultation report. (S6F-04416)

The north-east has been named Scotland’s road death capital after 24 people were killed and a further 384 were injured across the region last year.

Since the Scottish National Party first promised to dual the A96 under Alex Salmond’s Government in 2011, there have been no fewer than 16 transport secretaries and ministers, all of whom have kicked the can down the road. Will the First Minister give us an answer today, stop playing games with the lives of motorists in the north-east, and finally honour his party’s 2011 promise to fully dual the A96?

The EPL is destroying the oil and gas industry, but so is the Scottish National Party’s presumption against oil and gas, which the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was celebrating again last night. Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that, while the SNP has a presumption against oil and gas, and while it will not support Rosebank or Cambo, she has a brass neck to come here and pretend to support the industry?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to increase the current threshold of 50MW for approval by its energy consents unit of onshore electricity-generating stations, to allow more decisions to be taken by local planning authorities. (S6O-05111)

Will the cabinet secretary explain to her constituents in Aberdeenshire East why local democracy is being ignored and energy projects are being decided by central belt, eco-zealot bureaucrats who are not answerable to local residents? [Interruption.]

As we come to the end of the bill process, I can only reflect on the many substantive contributions from colleagues. As an Opposition, we have tried to amend this flawed bill, bringing forward the concerns of industry groups, rural bodies and our own constituents in order to make the bill workable, but, to be honest, it has been like putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg.

I have to congratulate the Scottish National Party Government on one thing: uniting so many people in their view that the bill will not bring about the change that they desire. We heard time and again at committee from witnesses, including estate managers and land reform campaigners, that the bill would not meet the aims that had been set out. Many witnesses expressed concerns to us about the impact that the bill would have on their livelihoods and communities. We heard about the risks to financing that are being brought about by the uncertainty caused by the bill—a point that was raised by Edward Mountain, who said that the bill will not boost investors’ confidence as we need it to.

We heard from farmers who fear that large family farms will now be brought into the scope of the bill, with the threshold for land management plans being reduced at a time when Labour’s cruel family farm tax is just filtering through. I have also heard from farmers who want to retire and rent out parts of their land to the next generation but who feel that it is too risky. Their concern is that they would never get the land back, because of what the bill is doing. That is an unintended consequence of the bill that will make it harder for new farmers to rent land and get into running their own farms. It is, as Tim Eagle said, the opposite of what we should be doing.

There is also uncertainty around lotting and what happens with staff. Let us remember that estates are businesses that pay their taxes, employ people in rural areas and contribute to their local communities. If an estate is sold, the Government can decide that the business needs to be split up, in effect. In instances where that happens, the bill is silent about what happens to the employees. The bill is bad news for estate workers.

We have heard from groups such as Scottish Land & Estates, which said that the proposals were worrying, and NFUS, which told us that the bill “could damage rural businesses”. The head of land and property at Turcan Connell described the bill as “junk law”. Yet, in the light of such widespread discontent among those who know what they are talking about, we have found ourselves at this point. The cabinet secretary said that “change is possible”, but I do not feel that the bill will bring the change that is required, and most of the witnesses at committee said the same.

Tim Eagle was right to recognise the amount of work that has been done, especially by Parliament staff—I agree with that completely. I also commend the way in which the cabinet secretary has approached the bill and reached out to other groups. Tim Eagle said that some of the large estates are

“the quiet engine of rural Scotland.”

He also pointed out that the area of tenanted land in Scotland has reduced dramatically—unfortunately, however, the bill will not reverse that trend.

Rhoda Grant made a good point about the community right to buy, which is still under review. We also heard at committee that it should have been part of the bill, and I think that that has been a missed opportunity.

Liam McArthur said that land management plans should not be overburdensome and complicated. I agree, and we need to keep a close eye on that when the regulations come forward.

I agreed with something that Mercedes Villalba said about the concerns around Oxygen Conservation and Gresham House. We have to remember that Gresham House was backed by the Scottish National Investment Bank.

The Scottish Conservative group remains opposed to this flawed bill, and we agree with the many voices outside the Parliament that have raised significant concerns. We will vote against the bill this evening, and we call on other colleagues to listen to their rural communities and constituents and to join us in voting no.