Chamber and committees

The issue is that most procurement, especially that for schools and other Government organisations, is done centrally. What steps will the cabinet secretary take to work with those who procure, including in relation to their wherewithal to procure, to ensure that local people have in their hands the ability to procure small amounts locally?

We all know that the cost of living is much higher for island communities—it can be 20 to 65 per cent higher than for those on the mainland, even during good times—and we also know that the level of fuel poverty is higher in the islands and the Western Isles. Shetland Islands Council told us that the rate of fuel poverty there is running at something like 96 per cent and that people need to earn more than £100,000 to lift themselves out of fuel poverty—which is nigh on impossible. That is as much because of climate change and the quality of the housing stock as it is because of the cost of fuel, which obviously also plays a part.

Other members have asked about housing. How confident is the cabinet secretary that programme money is being spent in a way that tackles the issues that are important to Highland communities?

That would be helpful. Perhaps you could provide some information on how we can install insulation in those homes, because people cannot switch off their heating over the summer. We hear of people being encouraged to switch off heating to save energy, but you cannot switch off the heating in those climates.

The less heating they need to use, the better.

I am concerned that, with or without this legislation, stags will be shot out of season at a time when they are unfit for human consumption. That is incredibly wasteful when people are suffering from malnutrition and depending on food banks. Will the minister take steps to ensure that that wasteful practice stops and develop a long-term strategy to keep deer numbers at sustainable levels while ensuring that shot deer become part of the human food chain?

The Deputy First Minister will be aware that Highland Council has cancelled 10 new school buildings, which means that desperately needed affordable housing will be lost. It is due to delays to her Government’s learning estate investment programme. Will the Deputy First Minister now make decisions about that fund, so that local authorities can build schools? Will she apologise to pupils, parents, teachers and communities that have been so badly affected?

Do you agree with the proposed scheme and that the powers in the bill are required, given that there are powers in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 to require a registration scheme?

Did the minister actually look at the document? It contains figures for implementing the right to roam in Scotland, which we have enjoyed for decades, as well as other aspects where private finance is not allowed. Did she read the document before she pinned her hopes to it?

That urgent action is needed on the climate emergency and its impact is something that unites us all. Rural Scotland is in a strong position to contribute, with our potential for tree planting and our large peatlands acting as carbon sinks. There is also agreement on providing public funds to incentivise action. However, private green finance is not just mooted by the Scottish Government; it is being actively encouraged to finance change. Many Scots will share a deep unease at inviting private financiers to make money exploiting Scotland’s natural heritage. We know that, where there is no private profit, there is no private finance. Therefore, is the policy rationale for using private finance for nature sound, especially if it offsets pollution elsewhere?

The most quoted reason for using private finance has been the £20 billion gap in the funding that is required for nature. However, it turns out not to be a £20 billion gap at all. Jon Hollingdale, the retired chief executive of the Community Woodlands Association, has cast significant doubt on the figure. It is now clear that the £20 billion figure that was produced by the Green Finance Institute—an organisation claiming that it is led by bankers—is grossly overestimated. NatureScot now says that it agrees in large part with Jon Hollingdale’s analysis and the Scottish Government, in parliamentary answers, has also revealed that other aspects of the Green Finance Institute’s report do not stand up to scrutiny. Even the Green Finance Institute seeks to distance itself from that figure, making it clear it always said that its data was heavily qualified.

With the £20 billion figure crumbling under scrutiny, we now see NatureScot throwing out alternative funding gap figures. For peatland restoration alone, it says that a figure of £3 billion to £4 billion is needed, against the £250 million that it has available up to 2030. However, the problem is not the lack of available investment; the real gap is in the underspend of the budgets that the Parliament has voted for.

Both tree planting and peatland targets are not being met by a substantial margin. In peatlands, less than half the annual budget is being spent. The recent programme for government set out the expectation for peatland restoration for next year as 10,700 hectares, which is less than half the annual target. At this rate, getting up to target will take the rest of the decade. To suggest that we can spend up to £4 billion of private finance on peatland restoration any time soon, when we cannot spend £10 million today, is simply not credible.

The case for needing private finance investment looks flimsy at best. We understand the reasons for the inability to spend the available budgets, which are set out in a recent Scottish Government social research paper, “Mobilising private investment in natural capital”. Key among them is landowner reluctance to commit to land use changes. Landowners will lose autonomy over their land use for up to 100 years, when they cannot see the future circumstances, the costs and how those might change. Even landowners suggest that offering more money—public or private—is probably not the answer.

There are other ways to increase tree planting and peatland restoration. Degraded peatland is emitting, not sequestering, carbon. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency and environmental health professionals are constantly acting to monitor and act on air, noise, water and wider environmental pollution. If we consider carbon emission as another form of environmental pollution, what are we doing to regulate it? Regulation could create the right incentives to fix our emitting peatlands. With continuing restoration grants, there could be no excuse not to act. However, where is the policy discussion on that and other forms of regulation that can be considered alongside whether private finance has any legitimate role?

Instead of addressing the practical challenges to ensure that our current budgets for climate investment can be spent, and instead of examining all policy options, the Government has allowed itself to be dazzled by the pitches of private financiers. I know that the United Nations climate change conference of the parties and the national strategy for economic transformation encourage consideration of private green finance, but COP does not tell us what specific actions we must take. We must consider the policy approach that is best suited to our circumstances.

We would tackle the issue very differently. Scottish Labour would not adopt the neoliberal economic preference of Green and Scottish National Party ministers for selling off our natural capital. We would set out and consult widely on a range of policy options that exist and build consensus on the best way for Scotland to move forward. That is what I urge the Scottish Government to do now.

I move,

That the Parliament reaffirms its recognition of the climate emergency and the need to achieve a net zero future; recognises that Scotland has the potential for more carbon sequestration capacity by restoring peatlands and extending tree cover; regrets that the available budgets for woodland planting and peatland restoration are underspent by significant margins, and that targets are not being met; notes that the Scottish Government has promoted the use of private green finance to fill a purported £20 billion gap in funding for nature in Scotland, but that this figure, published by the Green Finance Institute, has been called into question and is now recognised by NatureScot as an overestimate; regrets that there was a lack of due diligence carried out by the Scottish Government; agrees that investment in the climate transition is crucial, but believes that Scotland’s natural environment should not be allowed to be used for greenwashing by private corporations, and calls on the Scottish Government to carry out a full and transparent consultation on the policy options and finance mechanisms available to advance Scotland’s capacity to sequestrate carbon.

I am getting a little more concerned as I hear the evidence. Most out-of-season deer management is carried out by Forestry and Land Scotland, which is a Government agency. It applies to NatureScot, which is a Government agency, for a licence to do that. It appears that NatureScot just ticks the box and gives permission. There seems to be very little evidence of NatureScot trying to encourage the Government agency Forestry and Land Scotland, far less anybody else, to amend its practice to keep within the spirit of the law. I am getting really concerned that the measure is just about convenience and that very little thought has been given to, first, the food chain and, secondly, animal welfare.

What checks and balances are in the system? You have said that the reason for introducing the legislation is that the out-of-season management happens anyway and that the legislation will cut down on administrative burden. However, it seems to me that the administrative burden has never been doing its job, because the two Government agencies are working hand in hand to make life easy for one another.