Chamber and committees

Does the minister accept that the necessity in all this activity, whatever the intervention is—whether it is the boiler policy on which Mr Lumsden rather rudely interrupted and laughed at the minister after he had intervened, or any of the other issues—is policy certainty? Is not the lesson from the Prime Minister’s actions last week that it has undermined the entire United Kingdom’s efforts and crashed political certainty on the issues?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had the same connection issue, and I would have voted no.

After that introduction, Presiding Officer, I want to make it clear that I was here bang on 2 o’clock for the whole experience. I do not want any members to feel that I have been singled out for a reprimand, which, on this occasion, I do not merit, although I certainly do on other occasions.

It is the absolute core of the debate that there has to be deep understanding and acceptance of the gravity and seriousness of the threat that we face from climate change—Mr Ruskell made that point. For me, the comments by United Nations secretary general António Guterres on 27 July illustrated that point. He said:

“Humanity is in the hot seat ... According to the data released today, July has already seen the hottest three-week period ever recorded; the three hottest days on record; and the highest-ever ocean temperatures for this time of year. The consequences are clear and they are tragic: children swept away by monsoon rains; families running from the flames; workers collapsing in scorching heat. For vast parts of North America, Asia, Africa and Europe—it is a cruel summer. For the entire planet, it is a disaster. And for scientists, it is unequivocal—humans are to blame. All this is entirely consistent with predictions and repeated warnings. The only surprise is the speed of the change.”

Those are the UN secretary general’s words, which I put on the record because we—and the whole political debate in Scotland and the United Kingdom—are always in danger of being distracted by running off on tangents, with suggestions that an easier or quicker way to meet those challenges exists or that, perhaps, the challenge is not as grave as it is. However, the challenge is very grave.

What has served Scotland very well over many years has been the unanimity of opinion that this crisis has to be confronted. I go back to the climate change legislation that was taken through Parliament in 2009—I remember Sarah Boyack pushing the Scottish Government to go further in that legislation, and, as a minority Government at that time, we had to go further to reach agreement with other political parties. The same sentiment lay at the heart of The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, which everyone in Parliament supported with the exception of my colleagues and friends in the Scottish Green Party, who did not believe that it went far enough. We have been well served by that unity of purpose. However, it is fraying now. The Conservative amendment is deeply disappointing and frays that sentiment, because the Tories are choosing to stand behind the Prime Minister, who abruptly changed direction last week.

Why does a change in direction on this issue serve us ill? It serves us ill because we need policy certainty on such questions. Why has Scotland largely decarbonised our electricity networks within about 15 years? We have done so because of policy certainty, which was not created by—

Does Beatrice Wishart consider that the approach that was taken by the Prime Minister last week was a good or bad example of intergovernmental working between the Administrations of the United Kingdom? I think that it has been agreed across the board that there needs, at the heart of the debate, to be collaboration across Governments. Does Beatrice Wishart consider that last week's intervention from the Prime Minister helped or hindered the climate change journey?

I will, if Mr Carson allows me to develop my point.

That policy certainty was not created by the Government of which I had the privilege of being a member; it was initiated by our predecessors in the Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive coalition. Ministers and, might I say it, special advisers contributed formidably to creating the policy certainty that electricity had to be decarbonised, and, over the course of about 15 years, with the combination of policy certainty and vast private investment by our power companies, Scotland’s energy has largely been decarbonised. That marriage of private and public activity—private investment and public policy—delivered through policy certainty, has given Scotland a great advantage on electricity decarbonisation.

Will Sarah Boyack take an intervention?

Will the minister give way?

By way of illustration of the dilemma that Douglas Lumsden raised, does the cabinet secretary recall that, when the Conservatives argued against the deposit return scheme, they said that we in Scotland should wait for a United Kingdom scheme? Is it not clear from the statement that the Prime Minister made last week that there will be no United Kingdom Government scheme? Has Scotland been led up the garden path by the United Kingdom Prime Minister?

I understand the point that Chris Stark was making. He wants the Scottish Government to get on with it and do more. I accept that. I am not going to stand here and say that everything is perfect. However, I am also not going to put myself in the ludicrous position that Mr Carson finds himself in. He is pressing me to do more on climate change, when his Prime Minister has just pulled the rug right out from underneath him and all his colleagues.

That brings me to my second necessity, which is common purpose. For those who study intergovernmental relations, last week was a classic example of what is wrong with the United Kingdom. All Administrations of the UK had been working in this space in quite a collaborative way, until last week, when, to suit the supposed electoral advantage of the Conservative and Unionist Party, the UK Government decided to make a volte-face. There had been no consultation with the Scottish Government, none with the Welsh Government and none with the mayor of London. Everybody has just been thrown asunder because the UK Prime Minister has decided that he knows better. There will be suffering as a result of that folly of decision making that the Prime Minister has undertaken.

I know that the Scottish Government gets attacked for not being co-operative and that that suits everybody’s narratives—I was the butt of all those criticisms in the past. However, on this occasion, the UK Government has acted menacingly and unilaterally, and it will be the children of the developing countries of the world and our children who will suffer as a consequence.

In this Parliament, we need to recover some of the sentiment of the driving sense of achieving our climate change objectives. We need to spend a lot less time on the, frankly, pretty trivial political conflict stuff. I remember being told that the world would come to an end when the carrier bag charge was introduced in Scotland. However, what did people do? They did what my granny did in the 1960s: they went to the shops with a bag, they went to the shops the following day with a bag and they did not use plastic bags in supermarkets. Similarly, what a disgrace the nonsense about deposit return has been! This Parliament legislated for a perfectly good deposit return scheme, yet it was sabotaged by foolishness and menace from the UK Government. We need to move on from those things and to realise that the small incremental activities and actions that we take will help towards achieving the big picture. However, we have to get on with it now.

I will follow up on Mr Whitfield’s question, which was on a very important point that is worthy of consideration. Does the question not highlight another of the sensitivities in the discussions, which is about how we deal with educational content about relationships in the school setting? The issues cause considerable distress to individuals, but do the risk that Mr Whitfield highlights and the risk of abuse at a young age not reinforce the importance of having such dialogue as early as possible, in an age-appropriate fashion, with young people and children?