I am pleased that that was a slightly more positive answer than I have had from another minister, who has simply dismissed the issue by saying that national security is a reserved matter. I am glad that it seems to be on the cabinet secretary’s agenda, because the warnings in the assessment are stark, saying that every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse and that the implications are severe.

As this is one of the cabinet secretary’s last opportunities to speak in the chamber, I thank her very warmly for her service to Scotland. I think that she will be a loss both to Parliament and to Government. However, I urge her to send a clear message to her successor in Government that the implications of the assessment for devolved responsibilities, including for our food security, need a much clearer and sharper focus if we are going to avoid the potentially catastrophic implications that the report warns us of.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the United Kingdom Government assessment, “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security”, published in January 2026, what assessment it has made of Scotland’s food security and resilience. (S6O-05698)

I am grateful for advance sight of the documents.

A great many of the criticisms of the draft plan were not about methodology and measurements but policy and substance, given that the SNP has spent much of the past two years delaying, ditching or downgrading climate action. In particular, will the cabinet secretary tell us how on earth she expects to see the scale of investment that Scotland needs in the clean heat sector, having just ripped out the heart of the heat in buildings programme, depriving the industry of the certainty that it needs?

Does she have any advice for a future cabinet secretary for climate, who is going to have to deliver a completely impossible scale of acceleration on heat decarbonisation in the 2030s, as a result of this slow action now?

I will make a little progress, and I will let Mr Marra in in a moment. I am responding specifically to some of his comments.

The housing emergency should not be presented as only a numbers game. The numbers of new builds matter, but so does their quality. As for the criticism of industry lobbying points that I made earlier, those were challenged by Michael Marra as though he thinks that, somehow, the Greens do not get it. He seems to have forgotten that it was the Greens who took the boldest steps to address it through the rent freeze and the long-term rent controls—something that Labour figures such as Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have long called for because they recognise that the housing emergency goes far beyond Scotland and affects their constituents, too. That clarity has, sadly, been lacking in Scottish Labour’s position.

There are many reasons why there are challenges in improving and increasing that supply, but supply is not just about numbers—it is also about type. We have far too much support, not just from Opposition parties but from the Scottish Government as well, for forms of house building that serve the interests of landowners and developers, including super-rich build-to-rent organisations that build properties that are put out to rent at the high end or the luxury end, when we should be building the affordable homes that we need.

Action is needed on the housing emergency, but, whether it is on addressing rent levels for existing homes, ensuring that we are building the right homes for the future or fixing the mess that the house-building industry has created and ensuring that it fits the bill, we need to have the nerve to stand up to industry lobbyists and not the desire to cave in to them. That is the kind of action that the housing emergency demands of us all.

17:56

I am not sure whether we have time in hand.

I agree that we should be careful about our language, but suggesting that I have demonised anybody involved in the house-building industry is a hyperbolic use of language. However, even if Mr Marra does not support this specific levy, does he support the principle that the house-building industry needs to pay at least a significant portion of the cost of the remediation programme? What alternative mechanism does he propose to ensure that it does so? It will not do so voluntarily.

In looking at the various systems around the world, I do not believe that there is one that has this package of safeguards and measures. However, every member must make that judgment for themselves. The bill will have support and advocacy at its heart, and its provisions will be available only for those who are truly reaching the very end of life. It contains within it the path to the most robust protections for those who feel the need to exercise a conscientious objection, with complete democratic control here in this Parliament. The bill will not come into force unless MSPs are satisfied with the treatment of reserved matters.

This bill is the path to the safe, compassionate and controlled system that will give meaningful choice, with protection for those who need it most, and that will meet the public will for a change in the law. I urge members to vote yes.

19:01

I will give way.

I will begin with a wee reminder of why the bill is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that the house-building industry collectively puts right the failures for which it is collectively responsible, because it cannot be relied on to do so itself. It would be fundamentally unjust if clearing up the failures of the house-building industry fell solely to the public purse.

Are there options for doing that other than through a levy? It might be satisfying—I would certainly find it satisfying—if we could go after the specific developers who have caused the most problems, but we all know that that is not realistic, because the most irresponsible of them will be long gone. It is possible, in principle, that an insurance scheme might work, but to be effective it would need to have been in place for many years in the past, and it would not be workable to introduce one now.

A levy is the option that will work, even if it were not for the matter of trying to align with the other UK nations. A levy is clearly a more effective way to do it. It baffles me that some people are arguing that we need more rapid progress on the remediation programme but that we do not want the money from a levy in order to pay for it. Remediation is the responsibility of the industry, and it has a responsibility to pay for it; a levy is a mechanism to ensure that that happens.

We undoubtedly need to respond to the housing emergency.