Chamber and committees

On that hopeful note, I will hand back to the convener.

If we are to have significant progress, we need to see more work on waste reduction and a system change in embedding reuse and repair in our daily lives, our communities and our industries. Does the CCC have any advice for the Scottish Government about which measures will be needed to support our local authorities and the third sector to make that easier for people? We talk a lot about behaviour and about culture change, but how can we make that easier for people? What are the levers at UK level? We are in danger of giving the public mixed messages if we ramp up the infrastructure for energy from waste at a time when we are still struggling to do more recycling and to be more efficient with resources. Regarding bigger industries, is there anything that you can say about construction and about the vehicle and textile industries, which are some of the biggest emitters of waste?

Next week, our committee will be hearing from witnesses on the latest climate science and on climate impacts in Scotland. Today, we have been addressing Scotland’s emissions, but it would be helpful to hear from you briefly about where we are globally on emissions reductions and whether Scotland should be preparing for greater levels of climate change than we might have been expecting a few years ago.

I will turn to the issue of waste. It is the eighth highest-emitting sector in Scotland, so we know that we have a lot to do in reducing waste and becoming a more circular economy. My question is about the infrastructure for energy from waste. Scotland has a moratorium on that, but energy production from waste emissions continues to increase and new plants are in the pipeline and have planning consent, although they have not yet been built. It would be helpful to clarify the assumptions that the Climate Change Committee has made about Scotland’s total capacity for energy from waste and the implications that that might have for Scotland.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. I return to the issue of surface transport because it is our highest emitting sector. We have had some important questions from Kevin Stewart, but, if I may, I will dig in a little further. Some good schemes have been highlighted, such as the scrapping of peak rail fares and the concessionary travel schemes for under-22s and older people in Scotland. When I speak to constituents and other people around Scotland, however, they want public transport to be more integrated, to be easier to use and to be more reliable. Affordability is an issue, but people want to be able to get around as quickly as possible and to avoid congestion.

How can we make the bus more attractive to people? I had a quick look at the figures, and I think that it is still the case that bus patronage in Scotland is declining. That has been a trend for the past decade, notwithstanding the period of Covid lockdowns. In contrast, in Greater Manchester, where there is an ambitious bus strategy, there has been a recovery in bus patronage.

Are there examples elsewhere in the UK or internationally that you would like to bring to our attention and to the attention of the Scottish Government? How do we achieve the balance between carrot and stick? I am quite concerned that Glasgow City Council is proposing road charging for people who visit the city at a time when public transport is still not as good as it needs to be.

I want to ask a final question, if I may. I am aware that some political actors would probably rename this committee the Net Stupid Zero Committee, which I would strongly resist. On a serious point, though, there has been a change in mood in how we discuss climate and net zero issues. What is the best advice that you could give politicians and Governments who are faced with these challenges on how we can continue to develop evidence-based policy and action to counter some of the political slogans that have developed?

We are up against the clock, but you mentioned Wales as a good example of recycling that the Scottish Government could learn from. Can you briefly touch on what in Wales is working well?

I am grateful to members and the cabinet secretary for their contributions. It has been quite a considered discussion. It was good to hear your reflections as well, convener.

On Michael Matheson’s question about the role of Crown Estate Scotland, I recognise that it currently manages property rights and interests. There is no reason why that could not continue with regard to my amendments, although there would have to be some amendment to the duties under the 2019 act.

These issues are not new; they have been hanging around since the beginning of devolution. The former Scottish Labour-Lib Dem Executive asked the Scottish Law Commission to consider the law of the foreshore and seabed back in 1999. The commission reported in 2003 but, 22 years down the line, nothing has been done on that.

I hope that that is helpful in outlining what I think the on-going role of Crown Estate Scotland would be in relation to the amendments.

This is a welcome opportunity to talk about the role of our planning authorities and the need to have more planners. I am not currently a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, so that is not in my entry in the register of members’ interests, but that was my background before coming into the Parliament. It is worrying that there is a real shortage of planners. We need to get more people in, not just for our planning authorities but for other important organisations, including in the private sector. I am pleased that the Scottish Government is working with partners to begin to widen access to the planning profession. I will never miss the opportunity to agree with colleagues that we need to champion planners and get more of them.

The Government often asks local authorities to take on more responsibilities. Where that is right and proper, we should not make the underresourcing of our public services an excuse not to do things. If we need to talk about how we invest in public services, that is what we should do.

Good points were made by Michael Matheson about spatial planning.

I am not really qualified to contradict the cabinet secretary when she advises the committee that I am encroaching into reserved matters.

Having listened to what members have said, therefore, I will seek to withdraw amendment 515 and I will not move amendment 516. Nonetheless, there could be some further discussion to be had, and I hope that the Government appreciates the intent behind the amendments. It should recognise that many people in Scotland feel that there is unfinished business with regard to the ambitions of the Scottish Executive in 1999 and the questions that were posed at that time. Those questions have still to be answered, and if that is not to happen in this bill, when will it happen?

Amendment 515, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 516 not moved.

Section 7—Duty to publish model lease

Thank you, convener—I have the right paperwork in front of me now. It has been a long day. I will speak to amendments 515 and 516 on Crown rights to the foreshore and the seabed.

The devolution of the management of the Crown estate was an important and overdue reform, but that journey is not complete. Back in 2000, the Parliament abolished the Crown’s role as paramount superior, as part of the abolition of the feudal system. It is within devolved competence to legislate on the Crown’s property rights and interests, as is set out in paragraph 3 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendments 515 and 516 seek to complete the modernisation of Scotland’s land law by abolishing the remaining archaic role of the Crown in Scotland’s land tenure system by transferring ownership of the Crown foreshore to local authorities and that of the seabed to Scottish ministers. That would enable those important assets to be managed as assets of democratically accountable organisations rather than of the Crown, which, at the accession of every new monarch, is entitled to reclaim control of them.

Of Scotland’s 375 harbours and ports, 241 are owned and managed by local authorities, 24 are owned and managed by other public authorities and 33 are trust ports. They all operate under a statutory framework that is intended to secure the public interest, and they are critical to Scotland’s marine economy. It is important that that public interest extends to the foreshore and the seabed around those harbours and ports.

Amendments 515 and 516 would also prevent any future re-reservation of the management of the Crown estate, because it would cease to exist. The amendments that I have lodged might sound familiar—they were first proposed by Andy Wightman MSP during the passage of the Scottish Crown Estate Bill but were ruled out of scope because that bill dealt with the management rather than the ownership of Crown property. No such inhibition applies to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which concerns the ownership and management of all land in Scotland.

I move amendment 515.

I think that I will move it.