Chamber and committees

Some of the recommendations were taken on board but, to be honest, they were largely niche and limited in their nature. Ultimately, in order to build trust, we need to go far further, far faster.

I will come on to the culture that is developing, which is quite concerning for our society and our politics. Members need only look at some of the language that is used routinely in press releases to share—I hope—my fear about the direction of travel.

It is easy to blame external factors for the dissatisfaction. However, that is too convenient, because it ignores our responsibility as elected representatives to promote and protect the public’s trust in our democracy.

After 14 years in government, the UK Conservative Party—for a number of reasons—lost the trust and support of the electorate and was handed a resounding defeat in last year’s general election. The electorate handed power to the UK Labour Party but, in less than a year, it has had what can only be described as one of the most spectacular falls from grace in recent political history, with the polls now showing that the public’s confidence in it has evaporated.

For the Scottish National Party’s part, its mission to separate the UK has led to deep rifts in Scottish society. At the same time, confidence in Holyrood has been undermined by a series of policy failures in areas such as our education system, net zero targets, our health service and antisocial behaviour—the list goes on. I could easily be accused of political bias in calling out the failings of the Scottish Government, but the crux of the matter is that the public are aware of those issues—they see them every day in their communities and in schools and hospitals.

The public also see their elected leaders of all colours playing the spin game and being completely unwilling to put their hands up and take responsibility for any of what has happened. Instead, they tell the public that they have got it all wrong, that things are not really that bad or that the problems that exist are actually someone else’s fault. Again, the public can see right through that, and they are fed up with the spin, the false promises, the half-truths, the gaslighting and the shifting of blame.

Where does that leave us? If the doorstep activists from all parties are to be believed, Scottish politics may be facing a seismic event this Thursday. Whether that is a small tremor or a political earthquake, the ramifications will be felt by all the major political parties in Scotland and beyond. When that happens, the political class may be better served by a period of self-reflection in which it asks itself why that has happened and searches for the answers internally. However, a moment of self-reflection may mean that it will need to address some hard truths.

To go back to the point of this debate, deliberative democracy is characterised in the report as

“an approach to democratic participation that allows members of the public to engage in inclusive, respectful, reasoned and informed discussion and debate on significant issues.”

According to the report,

“Decision making is informed by this deliberation.”

This parliamentary session, the focus has been on utilising people’s panels that have been focused on policies on climate change and drug deaths. I welcome that approach and would like it to be expanded, which I hope that the Parliament will agree to. In addition, I would welcome the expansion of people’s panels to involvement in budget allocation processes. Such panels are already used at Mearns Castle high school for classroom resources and by Angus Council in the design of play parks, with children being the key decision makers in both examples.

However, I sound a note of caution on people’s panels. Even when the Government accepts recommendations, that does not mean that the desired outcome will be met, as we have seen with the climate change people’s panel.

That brings me back to the central point of trust. If we are serious about embedding deliberative democracy throughout the Scottish Parliament, Scotland’s elected representatives should reflect carefully on the state of politics right now. We must start listening to the concerns of the electorate, engaging them in a meaningful way and, most important, being honest with them. If we want members of the public to engage in inclusive, respectful debate, maybe politicians should try a bit harder to do the same.

I wonder whether the advantage of the people’s panels is that their format allows people, particularly with lived experience, to contribute. That format might offer a better way of getting those views into our democratic structures than a formal committee session, in which the witnesses might be sitting at the edge of a very large table. The panels are an interesting portal for the gaining and gleaning of lived experience.

Will the member give way?

Has any consideration been given to how benefits will be spread to communities that might not, for example, be located next to a large wind farm, but might still be in need of investment? Indeed, consumers are paying for some of the transmission from wind farms.

I recognise that there are opportunities, but the community benefits of Whitelee, the largest onshore wind farm in Europe, have generally been around East Renfrewshire, when just down the road is Castlemilk, which is an area that really requires those benefits. However, I take the member’s general point.

We have all heard from constituents who are struggling with their energy bills. Some of the causes, such as global geopolitics and supply chain shocks, are outwith our control, although circular economy policies can mitigate those somewhat. Concerns that net zero might push bills higher are real, and we need to listen to and act on them. We need to be honest and say that bills will come down with net zero, but only in the long term. If we do not do that, we will allow the climate sceptics to hijack those concerns and turn them into a broader backlash against net zero.

No one who is serious about climate action wants to impoverish people or place unsustainable demands on households. On the contrary, we want climate action to deliver thriving, wealthy and sustainable communities. Community ownership of energy is an opportunity to help to deliver that, but only if we move beyond promises and deliver the funding and frameworks to make it happen.

Last week, the Climate Change Committee published its advice on Scotland’s carbon budget. It is clear that net zero is achievable by 2045, but only with

“immediate action, at pace and scale.”

That action includes electrification such as heat pumps in our homes and electric vehicles on our roads. In fact, in the Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero, electrification accounts for about half of the reduction in emissions.

As we near 2045, managing energy demand will become ever more important. As part of the just transition that we all want, we need to not only increase energy generation but ensure that the benefits of new projects and technology are shared widely and fairly. Therefore, I welcome today’s motion, which is correct in saying that

“the development of renewables at all scales in Scotland should benefit consumers, communities and the economy.”

The cabinet secretary highlighted the community and renewable energy scheme and local development officers, who will be critical in increasing the amount of community and locally owned renewable energy. We can all support that goal, and greater community participation and ownership of energy can help to achieve it.

With that in mind, I will highlight a few of the contributions to the debate, which has been largely consensual—we have even had a sheep and some goats.

Douglas Lumsden challenged the Scottish Government to ensure that the £8 million that has been allocated by both Governments delivers. He suspended his pessimism about delivery not quite for his entire speech but at least for part of it. He also argued for proportionality in the planning process.

Sarah Boyack described community benefits as being critical to addressing the climate and nature emergencies, and she highlighted the role of local authorities in facilitating that.

Patrick Harvie stated that we are at a dangerous point in our energy transition and made the case for a reduction in corporate ownership.

Beatrice Wishart spoke about issues with the Viking wind farm and advocated for fair compensation for those who host energy projects. She also stated that fishers should have access to their traditional grounds.

Jamie Halcro Johnston, along with many other members, raised the issue of constraint payments, as well as what he described as “invasive industrialisation”.

Fin Carson continued on that theme by stating that he feels that the communities that he represents have been ignored and that decision making is, ultimately, too centralised.

Therefore, despite the general degree of consensus, a variety of views have been expressed.

Scotland is blessed with abundant natural energy resources, which, if they are properly harnessed, can provide clean power, help us to reach net zero and create jobs and wealth in our communities. Before I get to community benefits specifically, I want to look at the high-level picture. If we are serious about promoting community involvement, we have to recognise that policy has fallen short. For example, we missed the target to produce 1GW of energy from community and locally owned energy companies by 2020; back in 2010, Scottish Renewables estimated that offshore wind could create 28,000 direct jobs over the coming decade, but, by 2022, the number was less than 4,000; and, last year, Scotland’s 2030 net zero target was abandoned. Those failures matter. They damage the Government’s credibility and risk undermining public confidence in climate action, which plays straight into the hands of populists who peddle climate scepticism and easy answers.

If we want more community ownership and participation in energy projects, we need to make a strong case for it. Let us consider wind power. In Denmark, community ownership stands at 52 per cent compared with just 0.2 per cent in Scotland, according to the Green Economy Coalition. There are financial benefits, of course—we have seen that across Scotland. Whether they be micro hydro or community wind, the projects generate funds for business support, biodiversity schemes, active travel initiatives and youth and hardship support schemes, all of which have tangible benefits, rooted in a place, that people can see and feel.

There are other benefits beyond the financial. A recent study on ScienceDirect looked at wind farms in the Netherlands and found that higher levels of shared ownership saw projects spend less time in planning, with fewer appeals. That speaks to a simple truth. When people have a say and a stake in something, they want to see it prosper. Communities should not be left to feel that energy transition is something that is being done to them. They should be able to embrace it as an opportunity that they can shape and share in.

Of course, we have to recognise that not every community can host energy projects, especially those in dense urban areas, but that does not mean that they have to lose out.

On increasing demand in order to reduce the amount of constraint payments, what is the member’s position on an electric arc furnace here in Scotland?

Using local authority-managed charge points costs around the same price as petrol, although they are often broken. Using private charge points costs double. People with a driveway, who are generally richer, can charge at home for a fraction of the price. That is not fair for the hundreds of thousands of Scots who are being priced out of the electric vehicle market. Will the cabinet secretary guarantee that the new charge points will cost less than petrol?

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.