Chamber and committees

It is an honour to speak in today’s debate marking VE day, especially as I am the convener of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community. I thank Graeme Dey, as minister with responsibility for veterans, for his support over the years in recognising the role of not just the CPG but the veterans community.

Eighty years ago, Sir Winston Churchill marked this hour of victory with the following words to the British people. It is a much-used quote, and so it should be. He said:

“My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.”

He was right. It was a victory that belonged to everyone—the ordinary men and women who had been forced to put their lives on hold and endure the most awful conflict in human history. They had risen to the occasion like no generation before or since. They fought and died in far-off fields. They suffered night after night of relentless bombing that brought terror to their homes. They raised families and tended the sick while cities fell down around them, and they waded through the rubble to rebuild and carry on. Today, we remember their courage, their sacrifice and their victory over tyranny.

However, even as we celebrate the victory, we must never forget that war itself is nothing to celebrate or glorify. Around 384,000 British soldiers died in world war two, including almost 60,000 Scots. Fighting alongside us, 580,000 Commonwealth troops were killed, and we must never forget the enormous casualties that were suffered by our allies, either.

Sadly, I do not have time to mention every allied contribution, but I want to highlight the role that Polish troops played in my part of Scotland in the early days of the war, with Britain under threat of invasion. It was Polish troops who helped to defend the coast between Arbroath and Burntisland, and we honour them for standing alongside us in that dark hour.

It was not only soldiers who suffered. Tens of thousands of British civilians perished, too, on the streets, at work and even in the one place where they should have been safe—their own homes. By the end of the war, tens of millions of civilians around the world had been killed, including 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. Although this is a day of victory, it is also one of remembrance and reflection. With that in mind, I will highlight elements of other members’ contributions, with a focus on those of the party leaders.

The First Minister outlined that few milestones could be more significant in our history. He spoke about visiting his uncle’s grave in Italy and about the gravity of the loss felt by his family. In a poignant and heartfelt contribution, he made it clear that the passing decades do not dampen that memory.

Russell Findlay spoke of the six years of bloodshed and horror that our country endured until it awoke to the light of freedom as the dark forces of fascism were vanquished. He also mentioned the disturbing fact that the average age at which a Scottish serviceman was killed was only 21.

Anas Sarwar spoke of a global struggle against tyranny, in which members of his own family fought in the British Indian Army. He called for a permanent memorial to those heroes and remarked that VE day was the day on which evil was finally defeated.

Patrick Harvie spoke about the scale of the war’s impact on the millions of people whom it affected. In the wake of such suffering there were new beginnings. On the domestic front, the NHS and the welfare state emerged; internationally, institutions such as the United Nations were born.

Alex Cole-Hamilton highlighted the end of the war from the German perspective. For many Germans, today is viewed as a day of liberation from their Nazi oppressors. He spoke about the contributions made in all communities, including that of his own family.

Douglas Ross spoke of the requirement for not only celebration but commemoration on this day. I will certainly listen to the podcast that he mentioned, so that I can hear the interesting stories to which he referred.

Meghan Gallacher said that we will be forever in debt to our veterans, and she outlined why it is so important that we never forget their sacrifice. She also highlighted the importance of war memorials in supporting us to do that.

Victory in Europe was hard won. Let us remember that, especially in the early days of the war, victory was not certain. Despite that, Britain and our allies stood for what was right. We chose to uphold the rule of law, to oppose tyranny and to defend freedom and democracy.

What I say to colleagues on net zero is, “You turn if you want to, but this MSP is remaining committed to tackling climate change.”

I go back to the Scottish Government, because that is essentially what we are here to discuss. We have the rather strange and intriguing position of the Scottish Government repeatedly failing to meet the 2013 household recycling target. That was not a misquote by me; it really is the target from 2013. If we cannot meet the 2013 household recycling target by asking members of the public to put something in a bin in their house or near their home, there is no chance of achieving net zero.

We have the same story on the circular economy. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 was watered down to deal only with waste and litter, albeit that I say to Murdo Fraser that those are important matters. Meanwhile, incineration capacity is ballooning past the point where the policy makes sense. There is a long list of failures. Only yesterday, Friends of the Earth Scotland felt compelled to say that the Scottish Government was “paying lip service” to climate action.

I call that out to highlight the failure to make enough progress. As I said in last year’s debate on growing the green economy, we cannot expect the public to lend us their support or businesses to invest their money if they are unsure that the government of the day will deliver. We have run out of time for yet more consultations, road maps, working groups, talking shops and strategies. Where there is action from the Scottish Government, it is too limited. Talk of a latte levy will not create enough behavioural change for a circular economy, but it would be a game-changer to throw the full might of public procurement spend behind circular economy choices.

Dundee’s low-emission zone is too small and it does not cover the areas that would make the most difference, such as the outlying retail parks where people do most of their shopping. The focus on a tiny area in the city centre means that the most behavioural change that we are likely to see is from taxi drivers. In addition, the roll-out of thousands of electric chargers whose cost is double that of petrol disenfranchises all those who cannot charge at home, who are primarily the poorest in society.

Protecting our standard of living and providing for our children’s future requires transformational climate action, and I believe that that is what the Scottish Government should deliver.

I will use my time in this debate to speak up for the need for greater and more urgent climate action. To its credit, the Scottish Government has included some action in the programme for government, such as a sizeable investment in energy efficiency measures and setting targets for installing clean heating systems. It will extend the nature restoration fund and provide farmers with capital funding to achieve climate outcomes. There is more support for the transition to electric vehicles, at least in theory, and there will be a new national flood advisory service, which reflects the calls that I made for a unified body in the wake of the storm Babet floods.

Those are all welcome measures and I hope that they all do some good, but the reality is that they do not amount to the transformational change that we need in order to deliver net zero on time and build a circular economy. My concern is that Governments are facing and will continue to face increasing pressure to avoid taking those difficult but necessary steps to keep us on track.

Climate action is an issue where we had consensus on both the need for action and the price to be paid should we fail—I say “had consensus” because the climate debate is changing from how we act to whether we act. That is not a debate that we can afford, and it will come as a shock to many who thought that the case for action, backed by scientific consensus, had been won. The effects of climate change will be felt everywhere, with serious and lasting consequences for our communities. Everyone needs to think about which is worse: being ambitious in our targets and policies even if we might not always succeed, or stoking up a narrative against climate action?

Let me be clear that I am not for a moment suggesting that the Scottish Government should get a free pass for failure. I have held and will continue to hold it to account when it does not live up to its promises. The Scottish Government would expect me to do that, such as when it failed to meet its emissions targets nine times in 13 years. That was disappointing, to say the least, as is the fact that the annual emissions targets have now been scrapped altogether, along with the interim net zero target.

I thank Emma Harper for securing this debate on world asthma day 2025. I, too, thank Asthma and Lung UK for the incredible work that it does on asthma and respiratory conditions in general. It quite rightly campaigns for lung health to be treated as a national priority, and it is not hard to understand why when we look at the numbers. The motion refers to figures from Asthma and Lung UK that show that around 360,000 Scots are afflicted with asthma, although a recent study that was published in the British Medical Journal estimates that the actual number could be up to double that.

Although asthma is manageable for many, we should not underestimate the seriousness of the condition. Since 2014, more than 1,000 Scots have died from asthma attacks, with the figure for 2023 being the highest in more than 30 years. Many such deaths are preventable, but only if we take the right action, such as providing the basic treatment steps that are outlined in the motion. They consist of a patient action plan, education on proper inhaler technique and an annual review. That is a vital combination, because asthma requires daily attention, even if someone otherwise feels well, in order to mitigate the risk of asthma attacks.

It is therefore deeply concerning to see what the research from Asthma and Lung UK says about that. Last year, just 30 per cent of Scots received all three of the basic elements of treatment, which was slightly behind the rest of the UK, for which the figure was 32 per cent. We need more progress to be made, so it is obviously a concern that the respiratory care action plan appears to have been shelved. Perhaps we will hear from the Scottish Government today on the possibility of a new lung health strategy to allay those concerns.

I also hope that we will hear more about the action to tackle air pollution, because many people with asthma readily say that it makes their condition worse. Common complaints include feeling breathless or wheezy and having symptoms triggered. In that regard, I note the case of one of my constituents, which has been reported in the press. Audrey Glenn from Dundee has raised the impact that localised air pollution from coal fires is having on her. She sees her garden fill up with smoke, which triggers coughing and forces her to reach for her inhaler. She makes the perfectly reasonable point that house coal fires are not suitable for built-up residential areas in this day and age.

Zonal pricing will discourage investment in net zero in Scotland but will lower Scottish consumer bills. Does the minister support zonal pricing?

I do not. I think that we all agree with the ambition on green hydrogen, but it is more realistic to say that we are actually seeing grey or even blue hydrogen. Ultimately, that is an issue. We need to make progress on that, because the case for hydrogen is, in my view, inextricably linked with being green. Ultimately, the business case for net zero changes significantly if we are talking about different ways of producing the said hydrogen.

I also caution that we have been here before on green jobs, with promises being made and then broken. We see the same story repeated across the entire net zero and low carbon portfolio: emissions targets are repeatedly missed, recycling is stalled and net zero policies are watered down or abandoned. Although Government ambition and investment are welcome, we need to be concerned when the Scottish Government cannot say what is happening with its hydrogen action plan or how the investments will ultimately deliver a green hydrogen future. It is delivery that counts.

One place where that delivery is happening is at the H100 project in Fife, which is the first project of its kind to use clean power to provide hydrogen for domestic heating. I was able to visit it recently with colleagues and see its progress for myself, ahead of renewable hydrogen starting to be delivered into hundreds of homes later this year. I can confirm that the pancakes that were made using the hydrogen hob tasted exactly the same as those made using natural gas.

As an aside on transport, I note Graham Simpson’s comments on the EU mandating hydrogen refilling stations every 124 miles, not to mention electric vehicle charging stations every 37 miles. As an EV driver who is frequently frustrated by access to chargers, I can only hope that the Scottish Government learns from such issues when, or if, it develops future hydrogen infrastructure for transport.

Returning to heating, it is important that we have a robust mixture, which will undoubtedly include heat pumps, but we have to acknowledge that heat pumps are not suitable for everyone. Scottish Government estimates suggest that they will not be suitable for about 24 per cent of properties by 2040, even with upgrades. The provision of hydrogen utilising existing grid infrastructure is theoretically possible, but it is certainly not the first port of call. The most likely scenario is that hydrogen will be used in domestic properties either as part of a blend or where the properties are in proximity to industrial clusters.

I will close with a simple appeal to the Scottish Government. I do not doubt its intentions and there is much in its motion to agree with, but we need it to provide the detail and, ultimately, to help to deliver a green hydrogen future.

It was clear from yesterday’s debate that we need the data to confirm that, and the effectiveness of low-emission zones as a mechanism for improving air quality needs to be verified. We need to see the data, and there has to be an evidence-led approach. We could have air pollution monitors to ensure that the data is correct, particularly in areas such as schools, and not just focus on specific areas in city centres. A lot of work can be done in that area, but I was speaking about domestic coal heating.

Domestic coal heating is a major problem for air quality. However, in England, the sale of house coal was banned two years ago. To be fair, in Scotland, the cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy proposed such a ban, but there has been little or no action from the Scottish Government to implement it. That seems like an obvious move to make. Consumers and householders would not be disadvantaged, but air quality would certainly benefit.

Scotland has some catching up to do, both on the treatment and prevention fronts. I urge ministers to take the advice of Asthma and Lung UK to treat asthma and respiratory conditions as the national priority that they are.

Graham Simpson opened his speech on a positive note, and I shall follow where he leads, because I welcome the Scottish Government’s ambition on hydrogen. The Government is absolutely right that Scotland should be leading in this space. It is also right that significant resources are being committed, as we have heard about already today. There is the multimillion-pound investment in strategic green hydrogen projects, support for the Aberdeen green hydrogen hub and the investment in a green hydrogen farming pilot. All of those are welcome, because hydrogen, especially sustainable green hydrogen, offers another useful tool in our efforts to decarbonise our economy and reach net zero.

However, this debate is not only about climate; it is about seizing a significant economic opportunity. The Scottish Government’s hydrogen action plan aims for 5GW of production by 2030, which would account for half the UK production target. The target for Scottish production is 25GW by 2045 and there is the potential for Scotland to export 2.5 million tonnes of green hydrogen by that date. That could be exported across Europe, given the estimate that the EU will import around half of its hydrogen by the end of the decade. Because of the uncertainty about energy supplies in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, that huge market is waiting for a reliable supplier, and Scotland is well able to fulfil that role. In fact, Scotland could supply as much as a third of Germany’s demand, so it is encouraging to see that the UK has signed a hydrogen partnership agreement to collaborate with Germany on research, standards and trade.

Behind such trade, there would be new supply chains, new inward investment and, perhaps most importantly, new jobs. That is exactly what a just transition is supposed to mean, especially for my constituents in North East Scotland, who have built their careers on oil and gas and now need long-term opportunities to use their skills in a net zero economy.

I raised the issue of vaping in schools around 18 months ago. At that time, I noted that the majority of councils held no information on how many vapes were being confiscated from pupils.

It has been reported to me that certain schools now have toilets designated by the pupils for vaping. Can the minister provide an update on whether schools and local authorities are now consistently monitoring vaping among pupils?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the education secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what action is being taken to reduce vaping in schools. (S6O-04570)