Chamber and committees

That is a very important point that was well put.

Thank you very much.

You are anticipating my supplementary question.

Okay—where do I begin? I would happily offer a list of the reasons why I think that Scotland has got it wrong, but I will perhaps save that for the debate this afternoon on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which is, finally, an acknowledgement that we are years behind where we are supposed to be on reducing domestic emissions.

I was going to start on this theme, but it has been covered to a certain extent, so I will not go into it in much detail. Bridget Burns said that nothing about the transition is easy. To go back to when Scotland first bought credibility, domestically and internationally, at COP15 in 2009, that was done easily—it was done simply by setting targets. Agreeing the destination, without agreeing the steps that were needed to get there, was the easy bit.

Mr Wilson is probably right to say that it is a little too early to ask for honest self-reflection from the Government, because if it were to offer that now, I think that it would just say, “Parliament set too high a target and we didn’t get anything wrong.” Next year’s COP is probably the time when the Government will have to show that it has a new climate plan, after the bill that is currently before Parliament is passed, and try to demonstrate some credibility.

I want to link that to the issue of climate finance more broadly, specifically in relation to Scotland’s track record in financing the energy sector. Scotland has been a fossil fuel producer for a long time, and it hosts not only the companies that continue to extract fossil fuels but the companies that finance that activity. Despite a very clear signal from the United Nations and other agencies that new investment in fossil fuels cannot be justified, that is still happening.

What role and responsibilities can a country such as Scotland, with both the energy and the finance parts of that industry still operating, undertake in a soft-power sense? I am thinking of something a little bit like those early actions of setting targets and showing that we can earn credibility as a non-state party by doing so, or the early work on both the language and money behind the idea of climate justice and loss and damage. What can we do in that space to say that the fossil fuel finance industry is what needs to be challenged and changed if we are to have a global economy that finances climate action and does it justly?

I echo the thanks that other members have put on record to the committee, its clerks and others who have supported a rapid scrutiny process. However, across political parties, there has been a recognition that nobody really wants to be here. Nobody should be proud of the fact that it has been necessary to introduce the bill or for us to consider it.

The first two climate acts that the Parliament debated and passed were statements of ambition; this one is a statement of failure. It is a recognition that we are years behind where we should be on climate and that Scotland has not managed to be the climate leader that we all aspired for it to be.

Back in 2009, when we first set climate targets into law, by taking part in the international process—even as a non-state party—by advocating for concepts such as climate justice and loss and damage, and by building international credibility in its climate position, the Scottish Government tried to do the right thing, but we claimed that credibility and then have failed to earn it since.

It has been recognised that this is a narrow bill, which is part of the problem. It is certainly core to my discomfort that we are debating a narrow technical bill when we should be debating the profound policy change that is required to get us back on track. Prior to Gillian Martin taking over as acting cabinet secretary, the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, Màiri McAllan, was wrong to describe this as “a minor legislative amendment”. No—this is a fundamental point in the journey that we have been on.

We have had climate legislation and statutory targets for 15 years. During those 15 years, we have seen inadequate progress towards meeting those targets. If the next 15 years follow the same pattern, it is game over. We can wave goodbye to net zero if the next 15 years see a similar lack of progress. We have a good story to tell on decarbonising electricity, but we pretty much have flatline emissions throughout the rest of the economy, or reductions so meagre as to make no difference.

The new legislative framework must lock in a better trajectory—a better path—for the second half of this journey. That framework will involve multiyear carbon budgets and retain annual reporting and accountability. That is fine—that framework, seen in isolation, can be an improvement. There will still be room for improvement within it, such as by having a degree of politically independent scrutiny to ensure that future climate change plans are adequately funded. At the moment, that scrutiny is political or internal to Government, so there is a role for independent scrutiny there.

There will be a need to ensure pace, because if we see a new CCP come forward only at the tail end of this parliamentary session, there is a danger that we will have gone through the entire session recognising that we are years behind where we should be but with a lack of the acceleration that is necessary. We need to see pace on current action even before we get to a new CCP.

There is a case for debating a sectoral approach to carbon budgets. There is certainly a case for stronger duties on the Government if budgets are breached or look to be off track. I am sure that those and more issues will be debated when we get to the amendment stage.

However, the legislative framework in itself is not enough. Political will and urgency are required. That is the debate that we should be having—not one that is just about how to get the Government out of a legal hole. We all understand why the Government is in that legal hole and why change is necessary. We need to be debating how we got into that hole and how we are going to achieve acceleration of action now and into the future.

The bill could have been combined with policy substance. We know that legislation is required on heat in buildings. Legislation will be required on transport and on much more if we are going to achieve the transformational changes in policy that are required. Had this bill on a framework been combined with that policy substance, it would have given Parliament the opportunity for a much richer debate—one that would have answered part of Michael Matheson’s challenge to those who will the end but do not will the means, which has been a fundamental part of the problem so far.

Green support for the bill cannot be taken for granted. We will abstain at stage 1. Our support for the bill later in the process will be contingent on what action the Scottish Government is willing to put its weight behind. Government action over recent months in too many areas of policy has been in the wrong direction, so the Government has a lot of work to do over the short time before we get to stage 3.

Just this morning, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee took evidence on climate justice. Our witnesses talked about the danger that Scotland will lose the international credibility that it has won on climate. The bill recognises that Scotland’s credibility is weaker than it should be. It can still be strengthened, if, for example, the Scottish Government publishes, before stage 3, the energy strategy and just transition plan. It would then be able to go to the 29th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP29—with the clear position of a presumption against new oil and gas. Such a step would begin to reclaim the leadership that Scotland aspires to but that has been put in jeopardy.

It is a pleasure to follow that speech and I congratulate Alex Cole-Hamilton for many of the points that he made.

I begin by putting on record my thanks to many of the organisations that are working to support refugees and asylum seekers in our communities and, frankly, the awe in which I hold them. They include organisations in Glasgow, where a great many refugees and asylum seekers have been located over the years. I acknowledge Refuwegee—I invited Selina Hales as my local hero to the Parliament’s recent 25th anniversary celebrations—the Scottish Refugee Council, and Bikes for Refugees (Scotland). Using bikes is another way of enabling refugees to be able to access all parts of our community safely, healthily and cheaply.

I acknowledge that across most, although not all, political parties, there are a great many individuals, as well as local colleagues—not just members of the Parliament—such as councillors, who have worked hard to try to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are welcome and are made to feel welcome in our society.

For most, although clearly not all, people, empathy and compassion are part of our human nature: they are hard wired in us. Maggie Chapman was right that we should not be reliant on the work of voluntary organisations and of individuals who choose to try to make a difference to support others. We should value that volunteerism highly, but if compassion and empathy are parts of what we want in our response to the needs of asylum seekers, then it is for all of us, including the state, to offer them.

The UK’s current brutality against asylum seekers did not begin with the Tory Government in 2010; the previous Labour Government also dehumanised asylum seekers. I have to admit that I struggle to have high hopes for a fundamentally new direction, given some of the rhetoric that we heard from Labour politicians during the election campaign. In response to Claire Baker’s comments, I say that I want to be able to hope for a genuine and profound change of direction in the way that the UK Government treats asylum seekers.

In the meantime, irrespective of whether that change at UK level happens, my constituents need help. The policy would cost only a small amount of money but would have a profound impact on the lives and wellbeing of those people, many of whom are the most marginalised, the most vulnerable and the most desperate of our constituents.

I ask members—as, I think, Maggie Chapman’s speech did—to consider the real-life impact of what access to a GP appointment or a hospital appointment means; of what access to volunteering means for human contact and keeping a person’s motivation and skills fresh and alive; of what access to English classes or other education means; and of what access to each other and to community means. Those are fundamental to our ability to have a decent life and to feel part of a community. That goes for all of us, and it absolutely goes for asylum seekers, as well.

Asylum seekers in uncatered accommodation are provided with about £7 a day to live on. One return trip on Glasgow’s buses would take up almost all of that. Those who are in hotel accommodation are expected to live on just £1.36 a day. That is less than half the price of a single bus ticket. The idea that we say no to that basic provision—that simple and compassionate move—should appal any of us.

On the SNP amendment, there is nothing in it that I disagree with. In its own right, I support it, but we need to be clear that, if we are agreeing to the motion, we are agreeing to the commitment, and that is not contingent on UK change. If we pass the motion tonight, as I hope we will, the Scottish Government needs to fund it.

I hope that it is clear that my criticism of the Government motion is not a criticism of what is in it. If the motion is presented to Parliament unamended, of course I will agree with what is in it.

My criticism of the motion is of what is lacking in it—what is missing—which is any self-reflection on the track record of the Scottish Government and the things that the Scottish Government can do, as opposed to only what it cannot do. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament must use every available power. That case stands on its own merits, but it is all the stronger if we seek to convince the people of Scotland to take on more power and continue the journey towards self-government.

The additional measures that are urgently needed from the Scottish Government include reversing the harmful decisions on peak rail fares and on free school meals; cutting the cost of public transport compared with higher-carbon modes; making the country’s infrastructure investment the heat in buildings programme rather than a road-building programme that will lock in high costs as well as high-carbon modes of transport; fulfilling the promise of rent controls; and funding all those measures not just from a redistribution of the capital budget but from continued steps towards progressive taxation. Perhaps less scope is left to do that on income tax, but there is a huge opportunity to do it on local taxation—through progressive local tax reform, which has stalled since the Bute house agreement ended and which the Scottish Government needs to pick up—as well as making progress towards a minimum income guarantee. We cannot fulfil that completely with current powers, but the groundwork can and must be laid.

I hope that we can expect more in the years to come, including a serious change of direction from the UK Government, but I am determined to continue making the case that the Scottish Government can and must do more, even within the constraints that it faces when it comes to power and budgets.

I am grateful to the member for giving way, although I am not quite sure that I am grateful for her expressing agreement with my position so clearly. Would she reflect on why she got it so wrong when she once called for the minimum wage to be abolished? How on earth does she think we can tackle poverty without ensuring that poverty wages are abolished?

Some members have already mentioned yesterday’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation event entitled “Working together to tackle poverty”. I hope that whoever came up with that title has not been wasting their time listening to our debate so far. A little over half an hour in, it feels as if we all need to have our heads banged together, because working together has not been the theme or tone of this debate.

I genuinely hope that that changes. Shirley-Anne Somerville, as cabinet secretary, and the new Secretary of State for Scotland both spoke at the event about the need to respond to the real anger that there is and to the appetite among a great many civil society organisations, as well as people who are affected by poverty, to have Governments work together. However, the first part of our debate has been characterised by finger pointing and not by any hint of self-reflection.

I attended yesterday’s launch event, and I chatted to quite a few people in the margins afterwards. Overwhelmingly, there was a clear sense that the Scottish Government can and must do better, and that the new UK Government’s beginnings have been profoundly unimpressive. They recognised the deeply harmful track record of nearly a decade and a half of Conservative austerity, but they were underwhelmed. There was a recognition that most Governments like to underpromise rather than risk underdelivering, but there was a clear sense that the current UK Government appears determined to do both—underpromise and underdeliver.

I am not at all surprised by the Tory amendment saying absolutely nothing about the effect of that decade and a half of austerity, or by a Tory speech blaming the left for the effects of the economic policies of the hard right. It is deplorable, but it is not at all surprising.

What I am slightly surprised by, and certainly disappointed by, is the fact that, with the motion and amendments that are before us for a vote, we are left only with the option of taking a one-sided position. The Scottish Government motion points the finger solely at UK Government decisions instead of showing any self-reflection on the Scottish Government’s track record, and the Labour amendment does the opposite by congratulating the UK Government and pointing the finger at the Scottish Government. The choice of what to unite behind as a Parliament is in stark contrast to the JRF theme of working together. We are left with those two choices.

The Scottish Government’s track record includes significant measures to tackle poverty. The Scottish child payment has been described as a game-changer and a groundbreaking policy, and it deserves that credit. There have been smaller-scale measures to tackle the cost of the school day, which can still make a huge difference to individual families and households, and to provide free bus travel for more people in Scotland. The commitment to progressive taxation to pay for some of those measures recognises that we will not succeed in tackling poverty unless, fundamentally, we accept that there is a need to redistribute wealth and that far too much of this country’s wealth is hoarded by a tiny number of people and businesses.

The UK Government’s track record needs to be reflected on as well. The benefit cuts and certain harmful policies, such as the two-child limit and the benefit cap, are attacks specifically on the most marginalised people in our society. They show destitution being used as a deliberate policy objective by the UK Government.

The track records of both Governments need to be reflected on, but although placing the blame is necessary, it is not sufficient. It is perfectly justified as a thing to do—as a political argument—but it cannot be an excuse for inaction.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?