Chamber and committees

However, you would not revisit that—you would not look at it again. I am conscious that that might be a way to rebuild trust and to reassure the communities that you want to work with them, too.

The Government’s announcement that it will assist six islands to become carbon neutral by 2040 is welcome. Those islands are among the smallest of Scotland’s 94 inhabited islands, and many have already made strides towards becoming carbon neutral, which should be acknowledged and encouraged.

However, the announcement raises questions. Why is the Government targeting such a small number of islands and selecting those that are less dependent on hydrocarbons? The assistance that the Government is offering to the six islands is welcome, but it begs the question of what assistance will be available to the 88 other islands that will need to reach the same net zero target five short years later.

We must recommit to all our islands, as well as the whole of Scotland, becoming net zero. Am I being cynical in asking whether this is an attempt to divert attention from the more difficult goal? Is it something to point to at a time when our Scottish goals are not being met?

Because of their location, many of our islands are potential powerhouses for renewables, which could offset carbon production. However, there are challenges to overcome. We know that Orkney could generate much more renewable energy, but the grid is full. The same is true of many of our other islands. We need interconnectors to transport electricity to the national grid. I am sure that the Scottish Government will point out that that is a reserved issue, and of course it is, but there are things that the Scottish Government could do to allow islands to generate more renewable energy.

The Scottish Government must invest in green hydrogen. We do not need interconnectors to transport that but, because of a lack of investment in that technology, renewable development has stalled on many islands.

Shetland mainland is another area where a focus is required, with many jobs being dependent on the Sullom Voe oil terminal. To reach net zero by 2045, plans for its transition must start now. How should we reconfigure the terminal to create jobs for the future? A just transition must not simply be a buzzword; it must be meaningful. I am grateful that the Government has indicated that it will support our amendment, thereby showing its commitment to that approach, because many people who live in the islands depend on oil and gas for their livelihoods.

Shetland is an obvious example, but many other islands are also dependent on the industry. That is because the working pattern whereby people go away to work for a few weeks and then have a few weeks at home lends itself to island life. If we are to ensure that those economies are not impacted as we move away from oil and gas, we must commit to a just transition for them, too.

Courses need to be provided in those islands to retrain the workforce, and certification in renewables is difficult for small organisations to obtain. All that can be changed and developed by the Scottish Government. The Government should be creating an offshore training passport as part of its efforts to deliver a just transition. Retraining skills should not come at a cost to the employee, but should be seen as investing in all our futures.

We need investment in green hydrogen for all islands. That could also provide another use for Sullom Voe: the site and workforce could be adapted to enable the just transition.

There is little Government investment in the development of wave and tidal energy, yet Orkney is a world leader in that area. We must invest to ensure that those technologies come to market and we must ensure that, when they do, we have the skills to keep the manufacturing and production jobs in Scotland. That is something that we have failed to do with onshore and offshore wind.

We in the Scottish Labour Party are not against the Government’s new initiative, but we are concerned that it might lack ambition. One need only look at the island of Eigg and how the people there have generated their own electricity and are largely carbon neutral. Its internal grid could be replicated and scaled for the islands concerned without too much difficulty, and with new technologies to hand, it would now be much easier than it was for those on Eigg when they developed their scheme. Surely the initiative could be realised long before 2040, and any lessons learned rolled out to all our islands and, indeed, to the rest of Scotland.

Renewable energy is an untapped potential for all our islands. The northern isles and the Western Isles sit in some of Europe’s most energetic waters, and could meet much of Scotland’s renewable energy needs. However, to capitalise on that, the Government must take forward initiatives to keep our young people—the future workforce—in our island communities. That means that they must be able to access careers and training close to home, they must be able to find a place to live, which means providing homes that are affordable for young people, and they must have confidence in the transport links.

Perhaps the Government’s lack of ambition in its announcement is a direct result of its failure to provide adequate ferries to the islands on the west coast of Scotland and adequate freight transport in the north.

It is also well known that our islands are subject to the highest level of fuel poverty in the country. That is a challenge that must be overcome if we are to reach net zero.

Will the six islands get assistance with retrofitting draughty old homes to make them more energy efficient? That is desperately needed in all our island and off-gas-grid communities. What is the Government doing to look at how hydrogen could be used in contained gas networks to roll that out more widely?

The Bute house agreement has led to the Government no longer providing funding assistance and support for oil-fired heating in homes that are off the gas grid. It has removed the help and assistance to those who wanted to switch to liquefied petroleum gas, which is a more efficient alternative and the lowest carbon conventional energy source. The Government says that people should switch to air-source heat pumps, but those same homes are totally unsuitable for heat pumps because they are draughty and leak heat. That ill-thought-out policy will lead only to further fuel poverty. The Government must now commit to insulating homes, alongside fitting air-source heat pumps—anything less would condemn people to live in cold, draughty homes, facing higher and higher fuel costs. People who qualify for Government assistance for a new boiler cannot possibly afford £20,000 to insulate their homes properly.

We must continue to work towards the commitment to become carbon neutral, and we can use that as an opportunity to help people to tackle the higher fuel costs that are a result of the higher costs of living. There is no more pertinent time than now to do that.

We all know that the cost of living on islands is much higher than it is on the mainland. On average, before the rise in the cost of living, costs were 15 to 30 per cent higher than they were in urban areas, and that figure did not take into account the additional cost of fuel, nor has it been adjusted to reflect recent inflation trends.

The Scottish Government must make commitments not only to make the future of our islands carbon neutral, greener and more sustainable, but to make living on our islands more affordable. After all, islanders have done a lot of groundwork towards a greener and more sustainable future. What they need from the Scottish Government is investment and support where they need it most.

The investment is welcome, although the initiative is lacking in ambition. This is an opportunity for the Scottish Government to show its commitment to people on the islands by dedicating investment to right the wrongs that have been done to them. The Government should invest in the future of Scotland rather than in the shareholders of big multinationals. We urge the Government to show more determination, to commit to a just transition and to recommit to the 2045 net zero target for us all.

I move amendment S6M-04428.3, to insert at end:

“; acknowledges that the outlined move to carbon neutrality for six islands is just five years before the net zero target for the whole of Scotland; is committed to all of Scotland’s islands becoming carbon neutral and will ensure that those whose economy is more dependent on hydrocarbons will not be left behind; believes that the transition to net zero must be a jobs led, just transition, which is dependent on good quality, secure jobs in the renewables sector, and recognises the opportunities presented by offshore wind and its supply chain, including future decommissioning, in creating and supporting a skilled renewables workforce and helping to ensure that adequate investment is made in retraining opportunities for oil and gas workers and in developing the infrastructure needed to ensure island communities can benefit from supply chain jobs.”

Amendment 26 would create an independent Scottish food commission that was totally independent of Government. The commission would assist in drawing up the good food nation plan and provide advice to ministers and other organisations. It would also have the ability to carry out research. It would operate similarly to the Scottish Land Commission, which we are all familiar with.

We all know that we have a human right to food, but that right has not been realised for many people. The commission would keep the Government and other bodies focused on that right and its realisation. It would also allow the Government to amend the remit of the commission to ensure that it remains relevant to the needs of our population.

Amendment 30 is a consequential amendment that would make the process subject to the affirmative procedure.

I support the other amendments in the group. All of them would work well with my amendments, albeit that they might require some tidying up at stage 3.

I move amendment 26.

I was somewhat concerned that, at the start of her summing up, the cabinet secretary seemed to say that she would speak to and work with the Greens according to the Bute house agreement to reach a settlement on this particular section. Latterly, though, she seemed to include the rest of us with an interest in this matter, and, before I decide whether to press or withdraw amendment 26, I am looking for a commitment from her that this will not be a stitch-up between her and the Greens and that she will try to reach consensus among all of us with an interest.

Amendments 3, 15, 17, 28 and 29 would require plans and revisions to be set out by regulation. Amendment 3 would require that for the first plan and amendment 15 would require it for revisions. Amendment 17 is a consequential amendment, because section 6(4) would no longer be required if the plan was set out in regulations, as all regulations are published and laid before the Parliament.

Amendments 28 and 29 are consequential amendments to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That would mean that plans and revisions were subject to scrutiny by the Parliament—in committee and in the chamber—and were voted on. It is only right for such plans to have parliamentary scrutiny and approval, if we are to put right our broken food system.

I move amendment 3.

The cabinet secretary said that the plans would be laid before the Parliament, but my amendments would allow the Parliament to vote on the plans—simply laying them before the Parliament does not allow that. She also pointed out that to have regard means simply that the Government can have regard to the issues that are raised and then ignore them. The only meaningful input that the Parliament can have is by voting on the plans, and I urge the committee to support amendment 3.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 40 would ensure wider consultation than just having a vote in the Parliament on the plans. I agree that the plans should be consulted on as widely as possible. I press amendment 3.

In order for the bill to achieve its desired outcome, it should specify some high-level outcomes or objectives that are to be achieved, instead of those being left entirely to ministers or public bodies to determine. The outcomes should be aligned with the UN sustainable development goals and the national performance framework, in a similar way to what is set out in the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019, the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.

The bill must ensure fair work standards, which are often lacking in the food processing industry. We often hear that people who produce our food have to rely on food banks to get by.

Ideally, such targets and outcomes should be measurable, because that is intrinsically preferable and it would ensure effective reporting and scrutiny of the provisions. Although those objectives must be included, they would not prevent ministers or public bodies from adding any others that they wished to add.

I will press amendment 1, and I support the other amendments in the group. However, I have to agree with Colin Smyth that the Government’s amendments do not go far enough on their own. The purpose of the legislation must be clear in the bill. If we draft legislation properly, it will last for generations, and we must remind future generations what the bill set out to do. Being clear that the purpose of the legislation is

“to give effect to the human right to food”

will ensure that future generations will not face hunger as the current generation has. I appeal to the committee to support amendment 1, because I believe that it will make a difference to the bill and its implementation in the future.

I am disappointed that Ariane Burgess does not support my amendment—I urge her to think again, because I believe that it is a principle that the Greens hold dear and that we will be judged badly if we do not support it. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 1.

Amendments 13 and 24 are about strengthening the impact of plans. Amendment 13 would ensure that the Scottish ministers must act in accordance with the national plan. Amendment 24 would ensure that relevant authorities must act in accordance with their plans. In the bill, as introduced, they are required only to have regard to their plans. We heard that that carries no weight, as the comments and thoughts in the plans can also be disregarded. Amendments 13 and 24 would strengthen the impact of plans and ensure that they were adhered to.

I move amendment 13.

Amendments 8 and 22 seek to amend the implementation duty to ensure that ministers or, as appropriate, relevant authorities, when determining how to deliver the good food nation plans, must consider how their actions enhance human rights and, in particular, the right to food. They are modelled on section 1 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and do not represent legal incorporation of the right to food—the Scottish Government has expressed a wish to do that under a separate human rights bill.

Amendments 8 and 22 would increase recognition of that aspect of a good food nation and improve implementation through the plans. In particular, they would ensure that the consideration of such matters that is undertaken in preparing a plan under section 3 would be continued into the implementation phase.

I move amendment 8.