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.

The Scottish Government motion that we have been debating asks us to recognise that

“the draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan sets out a just and fair pathway to maximise the opportunities of that transition”.

However, the consultation for that draft plan has not yet closed and the Scottish Government has already come under sustained criticism for the inadequacy of its plans. As was highlighted by my colleague Richard Leonard in today’s debate, the Government’s own just transition commission is frustrated with the pace and detail of the Scottish Government’s plans. Labour therefore cannot support today’s motion; instead, we urge members across the chamber to support our amendment.

In opening today’s debate, the cabinet secretary acknowledged the importance of avoiding another betrayal of workers of the scale that was seen during Thatcher’s attack on miners, but recent independent analysis of the Scottish Government’s own energy system transition plans raised major concerns about the need for rapid development of domestic jobs to ensure that communities are not devastated by an unjust transition—not least in my constituency, North East Scotland, which has 98 per cent of direct oil and gas jobs.

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?

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 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?

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?

Yes. It is in response to your point, minister, about the need to address the issue of green lairds. You seem to suggest that part of the work to do that involves expanding community right to buy. However, the carbon credit model has the inadvertent consequence of increasing the price of land, so communities are then priced out and they are even more reliant on Government funding to buy land. It strikes me as quite a short-term solution to go down the route of a private financing model. In the long term, that increasingly prices out communities and the public from land.

Would it not be more prudent to adopt a community wealth building model that uses public funding but that locks that into the local area, so that the whole community and, by extension, the country benefit rather than overseas private finance companies, potentially?

I was.