Chamber and committees

I would like to make some progress.

Although Scotland has a significant share of Europe’s onshore and offshore wind capacity, we are manufacturing hardly any of the infrastructure for it here in Scotland. Consecutive reports and analyses make it clear that Scotland must develop domestic supply chains or our communities’ wealth will be piped abroad, just as our oil is.

The risk to communities such as those in the north-east is huge, yet the Government repeatedly leaves those workers and communities out of its plans, despite claiming in its motion today to include them. The reality is that it is taking environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth Scotland to draw up transition demands through its “Our Power: Offshore Workers’ Demands for a Just Energy Transition” consultation. Workers have told us that they want public investment in energy companies, safety, security and fair pay across the industry to enable them to move from oil and gas into renewables. Therefore, the Scottish Government must commit to working with the workers in those industries, who make up the communities that are most at risk in this time of change, and it must be led by their needs.

In February this year, the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity claimed that there were 500 new jobs out for recruitment as part of the deposit return scheme, including 60 in Aberdeen, all of which would contribute to our just transition; and, in March, the minister announced that 664 businesses had registered with the scheme ahead of the August launch. Can the minister share what assessments the Scottish Government has made of the impact of the significant delay on those new jobs, and of the implications of the cost to those businesses and organisations that have already invested in changes to their operations as part of the scheme?

The point is that environmental organisations have come up with very clear and tangible demands in consultation with workers. The Scottish Government likes to consult, but where is its substantive action?

Let us see those consultations turned into action for workers.

In addition to the lack of urgency around protecting communities from economic collapse, the Government is consistently overpromising and underdelivering on climate change and biodiversity improvement measures. My colleague Sarah Boyack highlighted the UK Climate Change Committee’s concerns about Scotland failing to meet targets, especially in peatland restoration and protection, which the Government does not mention in its motion. Peatlands are an essential carbon sink, as well as sites of biodiversity, so I welcomed the First Minister’s promise on Tuesday to deliver 110,000 hectares of restored peatland. However, that is less than half of what the Government promised only two years ago, when it pledged a quarter of a billion pounds to restore 250,000 hectares by 2030.

That downgrading of the promise on peatlands has come after we found out in January that the Government had achieved in 2021-22 only 28 per cent of its annual goal of restoring 20,000 hectares. It also came after the Government inflated its own figures by 40 per cent, thereby underestimating its own shortcomings, until NatureScot corrected it. Peatlands should be offering substantial carbon capture, improved habitats for our native wildlife, resilience to extreme weather and vital green jobs; yet, according to the Government’s own figures, 80 per cent of our peatlands are damaged.

NatureScot has also shown that many of our native species still struggle as they face the combined effects of biodiversity loss and climate change. The average abundance of our 2,803 marine and terrestrial species is still well below historical figures, and species continue to be damaged by extreme weather, habitat loss and scarcity of food.

We all know that our natural environment is a complex ecosystem with interdependent parts. That means that there are significant knock-on effects of the Government’s failure to improve our native biodiversity, our habitats including peatlands, and our air and water quality. All that must be rapidly addressed to ensure that Scotland meets its ambitious targets on the climate and the environment.

It is positive that the Government’s Scottish biodiversity strategy, which was announced last year, promises to reverse biodiversity loss by 2045. That is an ambitious target that would, if it were met, have a significant effect across Scotland. However, given the Government’s consistent inability to keep its promises, it is hard to have confidence that biodiversity targets will not go the way of the peatland target—a great dream, but far from reality.

What we now need is not more promises but action—action to address the current and future challenges that are faced by our communities, our habitats and our climate.

Labour agrees with the Government on the urgency of the climate crisis as well as on the need to make sure that the transition to a net zero future is just. We will always work constructively across parties to achieve the change that Scotland needs. However, today’s self-congratulatory motion from the Government will not help us to meet our goals. It does not give clarity about the Government’s approach and it does not instil confidence that the SNP is the party to guide the country through the challenges ahead.

I urge all members to support the Labour amendment, which would strengthen Parliament’s commitment to urgent and whole-hearted tackling of climate change in order to ensure that all the communities of Scotland are brought with us in the transition.

In Aberdeen, the Scottish National Party has, for the second time, voted to permanently close six libraries in the city tomorrow. However, Aberdonians know that local government has a statutory requirement to provide adequate library facilities to all residents, and we all heard the First Minister’s predecessor when she said that the Scottish Government is committed to supporting libraries directly. Will the new First Minister reassure my constituents that he will not stand by and allow our library buildings to close?

I thank our witnesses for coming today.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report makes recommendations around minimising and monitoring welfare risks, specifically on the presence of a veterinarian when dogs are racing, for the

“collection of independent data on injuries and fatalities at stadia.”

It continues:

“We suggest reviewing these metrics, and whether racing should continue, within the next 3-5 years”.

However, the report concludes that, even if a dog track is regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, which requires a vet to be present when dogs are racing, any welfare strategy is

“unlikely to have a significant impact on injury rates in dogs in the foreseeable future.”

In the light of that, would a better course of action not be a more immediate phase-out of dog racing?

Will you confirm that it is the view of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission that racing at unlicensed tracks should not continue?

Does that not contradict the body’s previous statement, last May, that it did not support the continuation of greyhound racing at unlicensed tracks in Scotland?

I am not sure that my question falls within the scope of today’s evidence session, so I will be guided by the convener on this. While we are on the subject of a well-functioning food and drink supply chain, can you say to what extent your members see challenges in the existing trade agreements that we have with regard to their ability to maintain Scotland’s agricultural sector and improve food security for the nation?

I will do my best, convener.

NFUS members will be all too aware of the interdependence between food production and having a thriving natural environment and biodiversity. I have three questions for you, Jonnie. First, what opportunities do your members see for the farming sector in supporting biodiversity and nature restoration? Secondly, what challenges, if any, do they see? Thirdly—this is important with reference to the proposed agriculture bill—what policy is needed to support your members in that regard?