Chamber and committees

The war in Ukraine.

Frankly, it is no surprise that this devolved Government is trying to play the people of Scotland for fools by shirking all responsibility. The Labour Government’s decisions have been absolutely disastrous, but the rise in fuel poverty has the Scottish National Party’s grubby fingerprints all over it. Thanks to the SNP, across Scotland today, council tax is up, rail fares are up, ferry fares are up and water bills are up.

Labour’s callous decision to ditch the winter fuel payment coupled with the shared disdain of Labour and the SNP for our domestic oil and gas industry means that the cost to families of simply keeping warm will only increase. Those two left-wing Governments are choosing to squeeze household finances with more and more taxes, and the people of Scotland are worse off as a result.

What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact that the growing tax burden will have on households in fuel poverty? Does the minister have any clue when the energy strategy will be published? The 2021 report “Tackling Fuel Poverty in Scotland: A Strategic Approach” promised an increase in the number of whole-house retrofits for households in fuel poverty. How many whole-house retrofits have been completed so far?

The cabinet secretary mentioned the sharing of information between the courts, the NHS and the SPS at the time of a person’s admission to prison. Will she also confirm that the sharing of data will take place at the release of a person from prison? Such sharing of information could have saved the life of my constituent Alan Geddes, who was murdered by someone who had been released from prison just hours earlier.

If the thresholds are changed and there are significant changes to the bill as it goes through the Parliament, will the cabinet secretary commit to lodging a refreshed financial memorandum in the Parliament so that it can be scrutinised properly?

The majority of people who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee were of the opinion that the bill would not realise the aims that have been set out. How would you react to that?

Will the member take an intervention?

Presiding Officer, last night, I raised a point of order on the timings of this debate and the timings of the Government’s response to the committee’s report, and you confirmed that everything is compliant with standing orders. However, that does not make it right. If, as a Parliament, we want to make good and robust legislation, we have to respect the timetables that are set out by Parliament, and the fact that the devolved Government can railroad something through does not mean that it should do so. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do things right. Even if we do not agree with a bill, we should make sure that the legislative process is the best that it can be.

I have not even started but, yes, briefly.

I absolutely get that point, but we did not receive the Government’s response to our report until, I think, quarter to six last night—I think that it was even after a press release, with many mistakes in it, was sent out.

I extend my thanks, as others have, to the committee clerks and our convener for the excellent stage 1 report. I also thank everyone who gave evidence and everyone who provided briefings for today’s debate. I also congratulate the Scottish Government on uniting almost everyone who gave evidence—land reform campaigners, the Scottish Land Commission, surveyors and Scottish Land & Estates all agreed that the bill would not deliver on its aims.

I share the committee’s concerns about the bill. There is not enough detail, evidence or focus on the needs of our rural communities, landowners and those who live on and work the land. As a result, I must say, regrettably, that we are unable to support the bill at stage 1.

My colleagues made excellent points in the debate. I will focus my comments on part 1 of the bill, because that is where I feel that it is most deeply flawed. The contribution that our rural estates make to the economy and wellbeing of Scotland cannot be underestimated or overlooked. Our rural estates contribute 57 per cent of our renewable energy generation, more than half of all new woodland, 13,000 rural enterprises, one in 10 rural jobs and 12,000 homes for workers and their families. It is that contribution that the central belt-focused SNP Government overlooks in its efforts to impose regulation on a sector that needs our support, not our oversight.

I am particularly concerned by any suggestion to change the definition of a large holding from 3,000 hectares to 1,000 hectares. In my meeting with the cabinet secretary, which I welcomed, there was a suggestion that that could be phased. However, that would lead to additional uncertainty for landowners and to a confusing picture. Liam McArthur said that we ought to listen to the argument around the issue. I would say that we should start at 3,000 hectares and then reduce the figure by regulation.

There is a misconception in the Government that big is bad; we also heard that from Liam McArthur. I understand the way that rural estates work. Scale and productivity should be the key factors in determining when and how community engagement and management plans should come into effect, not an arbitrary size model.

I certainly agree that most landowners do very good work, and we have heard that during the debate. Where there are issues, I absolutely agree that we should do something to tackle those, but from what I have seen, the bill will not do that.

As I was saying, having a simple cut-off such as the 3,000 hectares demonstrates the simple thinking of this Government. It makes arbitrary decisions for our rural communities with little or no understanding of the realities on the ground. It imposes what it thinks is the right thing to do from its desks in Edinburgh without meeting community groups. We have seen that time and again, whether on wood-burning stoves or the building of pylons.