Chamber and committees

I am pleased to open the debate for Scottish Labour and to give my support for the principles of the bill, but I also highlight that the gaps in the bill need to be understood and addressed. As we face the twin nature and climate crises, the bill represents an important step towards restoring Scotland’s natural environment and protecting it for generations to come. I thank the committee, the clerks, all those who gave evidence to the committee in advance of its making recommendations and the range of organisations that issued briefings on how we could strengthen the bill.

To start off, I think that the introduction of statutory nature recovery targets is a vital move, and it is one that I strongly support. That is because targets, when meaningful and properly implemented, can deliver action, focus investment and give clarity to communities. It is significant that three quarters of the Scottish public support legal targets for nature recovery. As RSPB Scotland said in its briefing,

“one in nine species ... are at risk of national extinction”

in Scotland, and we are

“one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.

If we are serious about halting biodiversity loss and reversing the damage that is being done to our land, coast and seas, we need clear, ambitious and measurable goals, because the decline in nature is on-going. We have had voluntary targets since the 1990s, so we need change.

Although I support the bill’s overarching ambition and many of the measures that are proposed, there are areas that need to be strengthened if we are to see tangible progress. We cannot afford slow implementation. The urgency of the nature crisis demands evidence-based policy intervention and clarity from the Government for our communities now.

I am proud to have been the minister to introduce our first national parks, and I know at first hand the importance of strong frameworks that empower local leadership while maintaining national consistency. I saw the transformative potential of local engagement in managing and restoring wildlife.

That is a very useful update from the cabinet secretary, because it concerns a key issue. Many organisations are deeply worried about the possibility that we could inadvertently reduce our environmental standards and impact on nature safety. We look forward to seeing those amendments, because we are all looking at potential amendments to address that problem.

Defining boundaries is important, but it is also about giving national parks support so that they can fulfil their full potential to lead on nature recovery, sustainable development and community empowerment. Work needs to be done. I believe that ministers should publish a national parks policy framework, setting out a clear vision for how Scotland’s national parks can contribute to nature recovery targets and climate commitments. That should also include guidance for public bodies and officials on how to fulfil the new duty in the bill to seek to further national park aims.

We should ensure that enforcement is not the first response to minor byelaw infringements. We should emphasise education, community engagement and practical support, because our national parks are hugely important to the public. With the right vision and accountability, they can become leading examples of nature restoration, climate resilience, sustainable tourism and food production in action.

I stress that our approach to the nature targets must not overlook species. Achieving the goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land for nature by 2030 will need meaningful dialogue with our rural and island communities, because there are residents in the Highlands and Islands specifically who feel both that their land should be protected and that it should be their land. We have been debating that issue this week.

Scottish Labour is keen to propose amendments at stage 2. I am keen to amend the provisions on marine and coastal habitats, because those ecosystems are critical for our biodiversity and climate mitigation, but their ability to sequester carbon and build resilience depends on reducing the pressures that are caused by our activities. Our legislative approach must reflect the need for adaptation as well as mitigation, recognising that nature and climate policies are deeply intertwined.

I thought that it was interesting that, in her opening comments, the cabinet secretary reflected on part 2 of the bill, because it grants ministers sweeping enabling powers to amend the two cornerstone pillars of environmental protection—the habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment legislation. The EIA regime covers numerous sectors, including agriculture, forestry, marine licensing, planning and flood management. It is concerning that, if we do not maintain the same standards, we could see them undermined. Stakeholders across the environmental and planning sectors have expressed deep unease about the breadth of those powers. Without robust safeguards, there is a real risk of regression in environmental standards, which we cannot allow.

I have been looking at the issue of having a non-regression clause to guarantee that existing protections will not be weakened, because the urgency of our nature crisis leaves no room for going backwards. I welcome the fact that the cabinet secretary is reflecting on the risks that have been raised by stakeholders and the committee, but we must ensure that the powers in part 2 of the bill will build public trust and not undermine accountability and decision making.

Through the bill, Scotland has the opportunity to show leadership, not only in setting nature recovery targets but in delivering them and demonstrating how democratic, inclusive policy making can result in good outcomes for people and our planet. In the past decade alone, 43 per cent of Scotland’s species have declined. This is a now issue, and the bill must deliver on its promise to set us firmly on a path to restore Scotland’s natural environment, protect our iconic landscapes and species, and empower communities to be at the heart of nature recovery.

With the right amendments providing stronger powers, the bill can help us to move from ambition to action, and I look forward to working constructively to ensure that it does that.

Yes, if it is brief.

Given the raft of comments from third sector organisations, experts and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, it would be useful for members to hear what actual changes the Government is committed to making at stage 2, in addition to what the cabinet secretary said, and for us to get copies of those changes as soon as possible so that there can be proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Since its election last year, the UK Labour Government has moved at pace to achieve clean power by 2030. Today, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero unveiled his carbon budget and growth delivery plan, detailing a comprehensive strategy to accelerate progress in a way that will bring benefits for working people, businesses and our planet. We have seen the warm homes plan rolling out across England and Wales and we know that we need to ramp up towards stronger action on that issue in Scotland. We have seen progress on clean energy jobs and we know that co-operative and community ownership that deliver community benefits must be part of that picture in the future.

Today’s LCM should be welcomed by everyone in the chamber because it is a key part of that journey towards clean power. It is in line with the Scottish Government’s own ambitions for the area and should be agreed to allow for the rapid implementation of the legislation. I very much welcome the fact that the Scottish and UK Governments have been working closely together and with industry to get the policy progress that the amendment will facilitate.

I thank Scottish Renewables for its briefing, which highlights the work of the Eskdalemuir working group and its solution for managing the impact of wind turbines on the array. That plan, while maintaining the integrity of the array, could unlock between 3GW and 6GW of wind capacity. Scottish Renewables also notes that, because 15 per cent of the Eskdalemuir consultation zone is in England, the legislation must cover both Scotland and England.

I will comment on the cabinet secretary’s remarks about parliamentary scrutiny, which I think are absolutely crucial. As Edward Mountain, the convener of the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee, reported, there was a useful conversation at that committee on Tuesday about the urgent need to fix the issue and to ensure that we have adequate scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament when we need to get moving on issues.

I hope that that will not distract from the fact that this LCM is part of a hugely ambitious strategy to increase renewable power in Scotland. I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about the work that has been done to deliver on our renewables ambitions and to get us where we need to be. It is clear that this is a relatively narrow but effective clause and that its significance lies in addressing the stagnation of recent years and re-igniting forward momentum to deliver opportunities, jobs and energy security. I hope that we can agree to the LCM so that we can continue taking practical steps towards change and towards a cleaner future for Scotland and for the UK as a whole.

The Parliament’s cross-party group on international development had positive feedback about the transformative impact that the Scottish Government’s international development fund delivers on issues such as employment and education for women and climate-resilient food production. However, our report recommended that the Government should provide greater clarity and transparency on such funding, to improve accountability so that we can monitor its impact and the benefits for local communities. Will the Scottish Government now do that?

We will not vote against the carbon targets tonight; we will abstain, because we urgently need to see the detail from the Scottish Government, as well as its long-delayed energy strategy, for which we have been waiting for more than two years.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is really striking that there is huge support across the Parliament for strong action to tackle the climate and nature emergency.

I thank the stakeholders who got in touch with us before today’s debate. WWF Scotland commented that the

“Scottish Government’s Indicative Statement falls short of what is needed to inspire confidence in delivery ... Without a credible plan ... Scotland risks overshooting its carbon budgets.”

It argues that the upcoming climate change plan should include

“sector-specific ... plans, costed policy pathways”

and

“alignment with the annual budget process”.

I could not agree more. We need a plan, across the Scottish Government, that goes on every year. As I said earlier, that is not just the job of the cabinet secretary but of the whole Government.

WWF Scotland also quotes the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which estimates that timely action will require about £0.7 billion a year, or £700 million, from 2026 to 2050, and that if we do not get on with the investment that we need, unchecked climate impact could cost Scotland £11 to £45 billion annually by 2050. That is not somewhere that anybody in the chamber wants to go, which is why we have been arguing so strongly for action and for the plan now, so that we save money and avoid negative impacts on our communities and businesses.

As Friends of the Earth Scotland observes, we have only six months left in this session of Parliament, and the Scottish Government has failed to produce its climate change plan and its energy strategy and just transition plan. I was going to intervene on Michael Matheson, because he announced the draft energy strategy and just transition plan in January 2023. In three months’ time, that will be three years ago. We need action now.

It is not about the cabinet secretary getting everybody to agree on everything. That is not the point—it is about the plan. The reason why we will not vote it down tonight is that we do not want to delay it beyond the next election. However, we make the point that what is in front of us tonight is not good enough in relation to accountability, bringing businesses with us, giving certainty, and getting the investment going that is needed now. Some 280,000 houses are currently vulnerable to flooding. With rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather, that number will only go up. We urgently need to act.

Over the next few weeks, we will work constructively in discussion with the cabinet secretary and her team, but we need everyone, right across the Cabinet, all public bodies, and all our councils, to work together. Scottish Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats have all called for more clarity, a plan, and clear action. Setting targets with no idea how to meet them is not good enough. We need to build consensus. It is about making progress.

We need to bring our constituents with us, and all businesses and communities need to see action. We need to have targets that we can all buy into, even if we do not agree with all the details. People need to have trust that their politicians will deliver the action that we all need in relation to jobs, supply chains, improving people’s homes and getting the transport that we need everywhere. It is about having buses where people need them and trains that run on time and do not get delayed because of the climate emissions that are impacting on the railway network. All of that requires us to act together.

We will not stop these targets today. However, by abstaining, we are bringing them to centre stage. We are not getting enough from the Scottish Government. We need faster action. We will work constructively, but we need the plans now, on both energy and the climate change strategy.