Chamber and committees

Shameful deflection.

Could the member set out what she believes is a show-stopping policy that this Government has introduced in the past 10 years that has allowed farmers to move quickly towards becoming net zero?

The minister must have been speaking to different farmers. The problem is, we know that action needs to be taken but the Government keeps kicking the hard decisions into the long grass. There is no certainty, and there is a reducing budget.

The same credibility gap that we have just heard from the minister’s response exists when it comes to technology and implementation. The climate change plan talked about new machinery, alternative fuels and rapid technological change, but we heard clear evidence about the cost barriers involved, whether those are in respect of low-emission equipment or emerging technologies that are simply not viable or available at scale. The Government cannot mandate its way past affordability, or build a credible plan on the assumptions that technology will arrive on time, on budget and at scale, without proper support.

We must take a more honest and balanced approach to our natural environment. Land management matters. Prevention matters. Those who work in our countryside, such as farmers, gamekeepers, land managers and rural businesses, play a vital role, but, too often, they feel ignored in decision making or—worse—treated with suspicion. Policies that are imposed without proper engagement risk undermining the very outcomes that they seek to achieve. A just transition takes people with it rather than leaving them behind.

Nowhere is the need for honesty clearer than in energy policy. A managed transition to net zero must recognise the continuing role of oil and gas. That is not just a political point but an economic and practical reality. North Sea oil and gas supports tens of thousands of skilled jobs, underpins our energy security and provides a domestic supply with a higher environmental standard than any imports. Turning our backs on that resource prematurely will not reduce global demand but will simply mean importing more energy—often, with a higher carbon footprint—while exporting jobs and weakening our economy. That is not a just transition.

Given the recent closure of the last remaining bank in Kirkcudbrightshire, does the minister recognise that access to in-person banking services remains essential for many of my constituents, particularly older residents and smaller businesses, who rely on banking but do not have reliable digital access? The minister rightly said that the development of banking hubs is reserved. What support can the Scottish Government provide to ensure that banking hubs deliver a full range of face-to-face banking services, not just access to cash? What specific steps can it take to help to secure a hub or equivalent provision in areas such as Kirkcudbrightshire?

Yes, but the minister maybe missed my point. Beyond a laser focus on restoration we must consider the wider implications, where the gains can be made and whether we are doing enough. That view came from the peatland restoration experts.

Within agriculture, farmers and crofters need clarity and certainty so that they can plan for the future. Let me be clear that farmers and crofters are not obstacles to climate action but are essential to it. They manage the land, support biodiversity and produce the food that underpins our national resilience, but they cannot deliver change if policy is unclear and support is uncertain. There is a growing perception that active farming is being sidelined.

I need to make progress.

The rural support plan was meant to provide that clarity. Instead, it has raised further questions. Funding pressures, reduced capital support and a lack of long-term certainty have left many in the sector unsure about what comes next, and that matters not just for climate policy but for food security. We must be honest—we cannot rely on declining domestic production and increasing imports to make our emissions figures look better on paper. That is not climate leadership; it is climate displacement, which involves exporting our emissions while importing food from elsewhere, often with higher carbon costs.

Unfortunately, this sounds like the usual broken record, with the Scottish Government cherry-picking statistics. If everything is so good, why has the Climate Change Committee suggested that we should plant 18,000 hectares of trees, whereas the Scottish Government has reduced its goal to 10,000 hectares? Perhaps the cabinet secretary could update the chamber on how many hectares of trees were planted in 2024-25.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I welcome David Barratt to the Parliament—he is one of the three Gallovidians that are now in the Parliament. Does he think that it is right that constituents in his home constituency of Galloway are subject to huge pylons and are not able to oppose the massive wind farms and solar and battery power plants that now cover our landscape when local communities should have more say?

I apologise for my late arrival in the chamber. To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with stakeholders to support the maintenance of banking services in rural areas. (S7O-00101)