Seòmar agus comataidhean

I express my sincere condolences to those who lost loved ones during the recent storms. As a representative of the north-east, I am deeply aware on a professional level and a personal level of the devastating impact that extreme weather events such as storm Babet and storm Arwen before it had on our communities.

One of the first major events that I faced as an MSP was when storm Arwen hit in late 2021. I had to make the decision that we as an office should stop work on everything else and focus our efforts solely on helping those in the constituency who were affected by the storm. What was most apparent was that the help that many people wanted was to be supported to help others, to be signposted, and to have access to resources. Many individuals, businesses and community groups reached out to offer everything that they had, whether that was a place to stay, a hot meal or transport to get to safety. They pulled together to support the many people in need as the storm left thousands of homes across the north-east without power. I put on record my heartfelt thanks to everyone who showed us the best of humanity with such selfless acts.

The way that I saw communities, particularly on the ground in Banffshire and Buchan Coast, working together and supporting one another through that storm made me ponder what resilience means in practice. Does it mean flood defences and electricity generators? Yes, but it also extends to empowering people on the ground to be resilient and supporting those who are first on the scene, as my colleague John Swinney mentioned in his intervention.

One of the most concerning issues that was brought to my attention by constituents during the storms was access to essentials. The bare supermarket shelves were a real worry. I raised that issue last week in the chamber. Those extreme weather events pose a threat to the marketplace, including the delayed arrival of everyday essential goods. Disruptions can sometimes last for several days.

Food security is one of the most pressing aspects of extreme weather events, which will only get more frequent and more intense. I ask all of us to prioritise that topic and embed it into all and any conversations on resilience.

It is not just in the marketplace where we see the vulnerability in our food chain. The storms have directly affected agricultural yields and fish catches, and have highlighted the vulnerabilities in our food production systems. Flooding, power outages and crop spoilage all contribute significant risks to our food security.

As the cabinet secretary alluded to, no single storm can be attributed to climate change. However, as I said, the impending increase in the strength of these extreme weather events presents a significant threat to our supply chains. Therefore, our efforts to build resilience must, of course, focus on mitigating the threats of floods and power outages to our food production sector in the first instance, which emphasises the pressing need to address climate change and its consequences.

The motion that we are debating is right to raise the concerns of farming communities and to highlight the particular impact that the storms and floods have had on the north-east. However, I would have liked the motion to have gone further in detail in a number of areas. It goes without saying that we are

“concerned by the potential for more frequent and more intense extreme weather events fuelled by climate change”.

However, further detail on what climate action looks like for the Scottish Tories would have been a helpful addition.

As we look beyond the upcoming budget, what assessment has the Scottish Government made of the challenges that Scotland’s ageing population will pose to the funding of public services? Will the Deputy First Minister comment on whether the challenge has been exacerbated by a hostile Westminster migration system, which Scottish Labour also continues to back?

The absence of offshore wind in the recent contracts for difference auction was extremely disappointing. It signals that the United Kingdom Government has failed to recognise the current market challenges that the sector faces. With that in mind, can the minister provide an update on Scottish Government investment that will help to deliver on the full economic potential of offshore renewables projects?

That is the point—there is no action or support there to help to deliver that.

I absolutely do. I thank John Swinney for that intervention, because my point was that there was no detail on how to tackle the issue. The Conservatives are all about the problems and never about the solutions, unless they are creating the problems.

The last time that I checked, the Conservative UK Government had backed fracking for shale gas, reduced subsidies for solar energy, voted against more ambitious carbon emission reduction targets, and provided financial support for fossil fuel projects, to name but a few. It was little over a month ago that the Conservative Westminster Government U-turned on its plan to ban new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, watered down its plan to phase out gas boilers, and scrapped the requirement for energy efficiency upgrades to homes.

On those roll-backs, I have to say that I have respect for Maurice Golden MSP, because he said:

“it’s a regressive move that isn’t only damaging environmentally but economically and socially too. It drags net zero into the territory of culture wars. The way the changes were framed and delivered will polarise communities and create a binary environment where you’re either for climate change initiatives or against them.”

I could not agree more with Maurice Golden, and I thank him for speaking up on that. We face a climate crisis, and the communities that are most affected by flooding, which will become ever more common, deserve better than petty culture wars. They deserve our unwavering support and commitment to tackle the root causes of climate change and to mitigate the worst of the impacts.

I note the work of the Scottish Government, which includes a £500 million just transition fund, supporting a move to more sustainable and renewable energy; crisis grants from the Scottish welfare fund; funding for the Scottish Flood Forum and flood protection schemes; the Scottish climate change adaptation programme; the national flood resilience strategy; and a commitment to establish a ministerial task force to supplement the activities of local mechanisms. Those are just some examples that give a clear indication of the Scottish Government’s commitment.

I am by no means saying that we cannot go further, but the Scottish Government’s unwavering dedication to tackle climate change in the face of critical opposition is a very clear message to our young people, who are the future stewards of this planet and who we are all ultimately responsible for.

I will give way to Maurice Golden.

I leave that to you to decide.

Good morning to the witnesses. As you are all probably aware, the Scottish Government has plans to introduce a Scottish human rights bill, which will incorporate four international human rights treaties into law. Dr Andrew Tickell, who will join us as part of the second panel today, has said that

“the difficulties facing this Bill”

apply

“just as powerfully”

to further incorporation. With that in mind, what do you think the Scottish Government, the Parliament, duty bearers and rights holders can learn from the UNCRC bill amendments, and how will that apply to our Scottish human rights bill? I am probably looking to Fiona Menzies and Jan Savage to answer that.

I will follow that up. Is there a solution—or several solutions? What can we look at in order to make this workable?

I have nothing more on that, convener. It was really helpful.

I do have another question, though. Given that this is our only evidence-taking session on the UNCRC bill, I just want to ask you—I will ask the second panel this, too—whether you feel that that is enough for us as a committee to be doing. If not, is there anyone else from whom we should be hearing?