Chamber and committees

Thank you for those answers. I would be interested to hear a little more about your specific monitoring processes. Do you have to wait for the UK Government to notify you of when things are being laid, or do you have channels through which you can monitor and follow the progress of work before you receive the formal notification? Is there anything that you feel can be done to improve those processes so that we can avoid the rushed changes that we have seen in the past?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a proud trade unionist.

I requested to speak in the debate for three reasons: first, I support the devolution of employment law to Scotland; secondly, the Scottish Trades Union Congress supports the devolution of employment law to Scotland; and thirdly, my party—the Scottish Labour Party—supports the devolution of employment law to Scotland.

Unlike Keith Brown and his party, I do not believe in Scottish exceptionalism; I believe in the common endeavour of the people, who, united in purpose, can remake our economic system to work in favour of us all. My support for the devolution of employment law stems from my principles of democratic socialism: that power should be held as close as possible to the people that it serves, be used in the interests of those people and be accountable to those people. I therefore welcome, as did Keith Brown, the Trades Union Congress’s backing of a motion calling for the devolution of employment law to Scotland, as well as the repeal of all current anti-trade union legislation.

The call comes from workers themselves, but that is not all that workers call for. That is why the next Labour Government has committed to a new deal for workers: no more zero-hours contracts; no more fire and rehire; employment rights from day 1; union rights to access the workplace; new fair pay agreements; and the repeal of the attack on the right to strike. Where is the SNP’s new deal for workers? What does the SNP offer workers other than zero-hour contracts?

Keith Brown will not be surprised to hear that the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress has called Labour’s new deal for working people the

“biggest expansion of workers’ rights in a generation”.

That is not all. He also said:

“That will be the choice at the next election. We want that first one hundred days Employment Bill through in one piece, onto the statute books and into the workplaces. And that’s why when the time comes I will tell anyone who asks: vote for working people, vote for change, vote for the party we named for our movement—vote Labour.”

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to members for being late to the start of the debate.

Although there have been points of consensus in today’s debate, I find it hard to believe that, overall, it is anything more than an annual box-ticking exercise for the Scottish Government. I do not doubt the cabinet secretary’s concern about the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss—she has always spoken with passion on this subject—and today’s motion rightly calls out the UK Government’s unilateral reversal of its net zero policies.

Yet where is the acknowledgement of the Scottish Government’s mistakes, the missed targets, the underspends and the reckless pursuit of private finance initiatives? That is the crux of the problem with this Government—not its targets but its submission to vested interests. Crises of the scale that we are facing require Government-backed, industrial-scale change of the kind that this Government has repeatedly cowered away from.

Take the Scottish Government’s approach to funding nature restoration. Last week, Parliament heard how the Government consistently promoted the use of private finance initiatives that are based on an uncritical acceptance of the so-called funding gap identified by the banker-led Green Finance Institute, an organisation whose credibility is now under significant doubt. Rather than hearing the Government acknowledge that the way in which it accepted those now discredited figures was irresponsible, Parliament instead heard it deny, deflect and double down.

It is clear that the Government is not serious about protecting our nature for generations to come. Rather, its priority is to outsource responsibility to meet our—rightly—ambitious net zero targets. Nowhere is that clearer than in the Government’s response to our energy transition.

The Scottish Government regularly pleads powerlessness, but when it comes to areas where it could be doing more, it readily shirks its responsibility. Let us take the offshore training passport as just one example. The passport would provide a route to alignment and recognition of training standards across energy industries, to make it easier for workers to do what Governments repeatedly tell them to do—to transition away from oil and gas into renewables. The passport has the support of workers, their trade unions, the industry, OPITO—the offshore petroleum industry training organisation—and, supposedly, this Government. The Government is quick to claim credit for the passport, with frequent references to the funding that it has provided.

However, when I asked the minister in 2022 to provide regular updates in Parliament on the progress of that publicly funded work, I was told that she did not consider it appropriate or necessary, given that it is an industry-led process. Now we are four days away from the promised launch of the already six-month-delayed passport and what news? The Global Wind Organisation, GWO, is reportedly still creating barriers to the passport, with offshore trade unions urging the Government to intervene. Our energy transition is too important and the need for co-operation is too great to allow barriers to transition to go unchecked. The Scottish Government cannot be content to be silent partners in our transition. Ministers must find their voice and bring all parties back round the table for the sake of offshore workers, the north-east economy and our planet.

For too long, we have allowed our precious environment to be degraded for short-term private profit. That is acutely apparent in the way in which successive Governments have allowed our land to be amassed, in ever greater concentration, in the hands of so few. Let us take Trump International Golf Links in Aberdeenshire. The site has long faced opposition from local residents who are concerned about the environmental impact of the development, but the Scottish Government’s proposals for land reform would do little to address those concerns.

My proposal for land justice would empower people to challenge existing holdings that are not working for our communities, and it would make sites such as Trump International Golf Links, which is more than 500 hectares, subject to a public interest test. In contrast, the Scottish Government’s proposals for land reform are far too timid. They will apply only to land of more than 3,000 hectares—that is almost six times the size of Trump International Golf Links—and they will not apply to existing holdings such as his. The consultation on my proposal closes at midnight tonight, and I urge all members to highlight it to their constituents, whatever their views.

We can tackle the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss only if we recognise the failings of the capitalist economic system that brought us here. The short-sighted pursuit of limitless profit has led to carbon-intensive practices, the proliferation of single-use plastics, the destruction of biodiversity-rich habitats and the pollution of our environment. If our transition is truly to be just, the Government must now shift its ideology away from the pursuit of private finance initiatives and towards community wealth building, so that, as we restore nature and meet our climate targets, it is the people of Scotland, not multinational corporations, who see the benefits.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a trade union member.

This week, members of UCU, Unison and Unite the union are on strike at the University of Dundee because their employer has repeatedly failed to make a fair pay offer. Year on year, real-terms pay cuts are harming university workers, student learning and our education system. Will the Deputy First Minister join me in urging university principals in our city of Dundee and across the country to meet the demands of campus unions?

I congratulate Jackie Dunbar on securing today’s debate marking world rivers day 2023.

Our rivers are a vital resource in our fight against climate change and biodiversity loss, because our river systems provide a crucial habitat to countless species. As well as the interconnected species such as sea trout, Atlantic salmon and freshwater mussels that are referenced in the motion, our rivers are home to a wide range of insect and plant life, all of which contribute to the health of our wider environment and, ultimately, to our food security and our public health.

Labour welcomes Scottish Water’s improving urban waters route map and the associated investment, but we must also address the complex problems that are endangering wildlife, preventing biodiversity recovery and risking our health. In 2021, the longest sewage overflow event in duration was reported in Aberdeen, in my region. Sewage reportedly spilled into the River Dee for more than four months straight—a shocking 130 days—from April to September. The truly shocking thing, however, is that the volume of waste was not recorded.

We know that sewage overflows can cause algae blooms and loss of biodiversity, and that they can introduce other pollution into our rivers. It is not just nature that suffers; it is our quality of life, as our waterways are a source of recreational enjoyment for many of us. During the pandemic, we were reminded of just how crucial access to nature is to our health and wellbeing. It is clear that monitoring of overflows must improve, but that cannot happen without the installation of spill monitors.

In December 2021, Scottish Water vowed to increase the number of storm drain monitors to more than 1,000 by the end of 2024. However, as of 1 March this year, not a single new device had been installed. When I asked the First Minister to confirm exactly how many of those 1,000 storm drain monitors he expected to be installed by the end of this year, he could not give me a figure. That does little to reassure my constituents in the north-east that an event such as that four-month spill in the River Dee will not happen again. I hope that the minister will provide the Parliament with an update on the progress of that work today.

The importance of affording the highest-possible protection to our natural environment cannot be overstated. However, that is not currently the case for Scotland’s waters. Parliament has previously heard that untreated human waste was discharged into Scotland’s waters more than 10,000 times in a single year. Our rivers are part of a rich water network that connects habitats, species and life across the country. Even where sewage is not discharged directly into our rivers, the impact is still felt in them.

For the sake of our health, our wellbeing and the future of our environment, regulation of Scotland’s waters must be driven by four core principles: keeping Scotland’s water in public hands, ensuring access to clean water for local communities, protecting public health and protecting Scotland’s natural environment, so that next year’s world rivers day can truly be a celebration of our rivers.

The Scottish Government has consistently promoted the use of private finance to meet our rightly ambitious climate and nature targets. It has done so based on an uncritical acceptance of the so-called funding gap that was identified by the Green Finance Institute which, as we heard from Richard Leonard, is an organisation that is led by bankers. As we have also heard today, that alleged gap of £20 billion has not been demonstrated by the Scottish Government and is now not recognised by NatureScot, which has publicly stated that it is an overestimate.

The recent report by independent forestry and land use consultant Jon Hollingdale, raises significant doubts about the credibility of the Green Finance Institute. In the minister’s closing remarks, we should have heard an acknowledgement on the record of the irresponsible way in which the Scottish Government accepted those now discredited figures. Instead, the Scottish Government denied, deflected and doubled down.

In March, when I put it to minister Lorna Slater at a meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee that pursuing a private finance model at this scale would have a negative impact on communities in the long term, I was told:

“The need for private finance for nature restoration is unquestioned.”

Well, I am questioning it. I was also told:

“The finance gap is £20 billion.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 14 March 2023, c 31, 32]

However, today the minister told us that that figure is only one estimate.

Private financiers are not accountable to the people of Scotland; the Scottish Government is. For a Government minister to assert such figures as fact without question is highly irresponsible, and to blithely outsource the meeting of Scotland’s environmental responsibilities based on unverified figures is nothing short of an abdication of responsibility. For a Government to sell its mandate and our precious natural resources to the highest bidder is shamefully telling of the way in which the Scottish Government operates.

If the Government continues with its private finance initiative, we face the prospect of Scotland’s land and natural resources being used as a greenwash for big polluters. As we heard from Rhoda Grant, those financiers will require a return on their investment, so, in return for funding nature restoration and carbon sequestration, carbon credits will be created and sold at a profit. Who will buy the credits? We have already seen that the principal beneficiaries of carbon credits are carbon polluters. Big emitters that have profited from environmentally damaging practices are being encouraged to pay to continue to pollute. Instead of Scotland’s rich natural resources benefiting the people of Scotland and contributing to the global response to the climate emergency, they will be used to absolve the sins of the biggest polluters.

Rather than selling indulgences to absolve polluters, the Scottish Government must fulfil its role to the people of Scotland—restoring nature and reducing emissions—not simply in order to meet targets but to secure a brighter future for us all. It is time for the Scottish Government to draw breath and consider all options to restore nature, not to simply hand over the reins to private financiers. I urge all members to support the Labour motion.

I begin as other members have by congratulating Gillian Mackay on securing this members’ business debate on the environmental impacts of single-use vapes and on the work that she and her team have done to raise the issue in Parliament.

As members of the Scottish Parliament, we are in a unique position to use our platform to amplify the work of campaigners across the country. I therefore hope that everyone in today’s debate will join me in commending the efforts of environmental campaigner Laura Young for her tireless work on the issue. In fact, it was after hearing about Laura’s work that I first became involved in the issue.

Laura was kind enough to take me out on a vape walk, which was an opportunity to go out with her and walk the streets of Dundee to see whether we could find any discarded vapes, while learning more about the issue on the way. As well as giving up her time to tackle the issue and to meet and educate me, Laura encouraged local student activists to get involved. She is inspiring the next generation of environmental campaigners, so I take the opportunity today to put on the record my thanks to Laura for her perseverance and commitment. I say to her that she should keep campaigning—she is getting results.

Back in Dundee, on our vape walk, in just one hour Laura and I found 63 discarded single-use vapes in and around the university campus. Laura explained that that was not unusual, especially following a Friday or Saturday night out, so we decided to make some inquiries on campus and in the local shops that sell disposable vapes to find out what the realistic alternative to littering was. We found that there were no safe disposal points in and around the shops that were selling the products.

The best that we could hope for was that people would dispose of single-use vapes in ordinary waste bins. The problem with simply putting them in the bin is that, although it keeps them off the streets and makes the streets look nicer, it does not make the environment any cleaner because they will eventually end up in landfill or incinerators, still polluting our soil and air.

Worse still, as we have heard, there have been multiple instances of what are known as zombie batteries in vapes that have been improperly disposed of causing fires and hazards at waste processing sites, which puts the workers there at risk. That has led to calls for improved recycling facilities to help to deal with the mounting number of disposable vapes.

However, disposable vapes do not harm the environment only when they are discarded after use; they also have an impact at source. Although they will be used for just one day or night, they use scarce resources. We simply cannot afford to discard things such as the lithium in the batteries that power the vapes after just one use. That lithium could instead be used to power our transition away from fossil fuels.

Therefore, I do not believe that the answer is improved recycling or design regulations. Instead, there must be an outright ban on single-use vapes in Scotland. Since my first vape walk with Laura, support for a ban has grown. Starting with Dundee City Council in the region that I represent—

Okay. Twenty-six councils now support a ban, along with a range of organisations, so—

Trump International golf links in Aberdeenshire has long faced opposition from local residents who are concerned about the social and environmental impact of the development. Under the Government’s current land reform proposals, a 560-hectare holding such as Trump International would not be considered “large” and so would not be subject to a public interest test. Does the cabinet secretary agree that land of that size should be accountable to local communities and the wider public?

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on the development of an offshore training passport, as funded by the just transition fund. (S6O-02476)