Chamber and committees

I see that Linda Gillespie does not wish to comment. That is fine.

I will move on to land management plans. The plans are required to set out how the land is being managed in a way that contributes to achieving net zero, adapting to climate change and increasing or sustaining biodiversity. Is that adequate, or are there other criteria that it might be appropriate to include? Should those be addressed through primary or secondary legislation?

Josh Doble is again maintaining eye contact, so we will go to him.

We have had evidence that suggests that large landholdings are more likely to attract private investment and deliver against woodland and peatland targets at pace and scale. Is that the witnesses’ view, or do you have a body of evidence or examples of smaller landholdings achieving that or working together to deliver at scale?

Jon, you have been nominated.

If we have more small landholdings, is there more scope for collaboration and working differently?

I will stick with land management plans. Is there a risk that production of the plans will become quite a formulaic exercise with a big role for external consultants, such that we start to lose meaningful engagement with communities? Does anyone have a view on that or any advice to the committee, as we look at this part of the bill?

I just wanted to be clear about that.

Thank you for that.

To expand on my initial question that I put to all the witnesses, you might remember that, back in April, the Scottish Government announced a consultation on a new carbon tax on large estates to incentivise peatland restoration, tree planting and renewable energy generation. Do you have a view on that proposal? Do you agree or disagree that taxation is the best way to achieve decarbonising land use and agriculture? I do not know whether anyone has a strong view on that or wants to go first. I will go to Josh Doble, and then to Jon Hollingdale.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her comments about my colleague Sarah Boyack. We had good discussions last week, and Sarah Boyack appreciated the cabinet secretary’s willingness to fix some of the oversights at stage 2. It is good to have that sorted.

On Mark Ruskell’s amendment 8, which we support—in fact, we support all the amendments in the group—we had a good discussion on the intention behind his amendment at stage 2, only a week ago. We understood and supported the principle, and amendment 8 gets the right balance.

This is an opportunity to remind the chamber that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has heard strongly from the climate change people’s panel that the public want to be involved and consulted in a very dynamic way. A raft of recommendations are sitting with the Government. However, those are not just for the Government to reflect on; they are for other public bodies to reflect on, too.

Amendment 8 is important. Indeed, anything that reminds us that we need to take the public with us on that journey and get the best ideas from as many people in Scotland as possible can only be a good thing.

I am grateful to Patrick Harvie—I think that he will recognise that Scottish Labour members tried to be open minded at stage 2, and asked him some questions in order to get some clarity. However, although we are sympathetic to his aims in lodging amendments 14 and 15, which I think are alternatives to each other—is that correct?

I am pleased to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour. Before I turn to the bill and the amendments that we have just agreed to, which are, in large part, technical, it is important to put on record our sympathy for the hundreds of people in Spain whose lives have been devastated by the current emergency—the dead, the missing, the families left behind and the front-line workers who are risking their lives to save others. Our thoughts are with them. The scenes that we have seen in recent days have been, frankly, unbelievable and really difficult to witness.

As we conduct the debate, we should all be reminded that the climate emergency is not something that is happening far away. It is not a tomorrow problem but a right-now one. It is also a matter of life and death. I am pleased that we have the chance to discuss our shared passions for how we tackle the climate and nature emergencies, but we currently have real-time reminders that we cannot just talk about them—we need action. It is not a shortage of ideas that has brought us to where we are on the bill. Across the Parliament, members are passionate about addressing the climate and nature emergencies, but we need bold and radical action that has finance behind it.

Like other members, Scottish Labour colleagues are frustrated that we are at this point today. We would much rather be discussing the climate change plan and all the other exciting projects that we need to see. We know that not all of those will be easy or plain sailing—there will be debate about the action that needs to be taken—but that is where we need to get to. Scottish Labour has been clear that our approach to the bill would be based on being constructive and trying to find consensus. The bill was narrow in scope for good reason. We lodged amendments that were aimed at strengthening and improving it, and we managed to do that. We have worked with other colleagues on their amendments. Even when we could not support those, we always sought to find some common ground.

However, from the briefings that members received in advance of the debate, it is clear that stakeholders, including WWF Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland organisation share our frustration. People are a bit fed up and they really want to see progress being made.

Scottish Labour will continue to work with the Scottish Government. Without wishing to embarrass the cabinet secretary too much, I would like to say that it has been refreshing to work with Gillian Martin and her officials. I think that I am more familiar with her office’s cushions and interior than I am with my own, because we have all been in and out of there so often in recent weeks—it is as though it has had a revolving door. We are all a bit exhausted, because committee and other colleagues have worked really hard around the clock. It is important to recognise the efforts of Government officials and Parliament staff. It is not ideal to have to work at such pace; we want to have proper time to consider proposals and ideas. However, in getting to where we are today, following the stage 2 and stage 3 processes, we have arrived at a good place. I hope that we will continue to have dialogue and try to find consensus and common ground.

I hear what other members say about the issues that remain unknown—the bills, strategies and plans that we have still to see—not all of which sit with the cabinet secretary. That is a hint to the Government that those need to take absolutely top priority. That is why we need progress on a heat in buildings bill, the final energy strategy and just transition plan, and an action plan to reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent by the end of the decade, as well as support for our rural communities.

The opportunity is huge. If we get the action right and make progress, the gains will be not just for the environment but for our economy and our communities. The bill is an environmental, economic and social imperative. As I said at the start of my remarks, it is a matter of life and death for people and the planet.

We support the bill at stage 3, and I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues in the months ahead.