Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

How will I follow that?

I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour as we discuss the draft climate change plan. When the plan is finalised, it will shape Scotland’s environmental, economic and social future for decades to come. The plan has to get it right, because the risks are high for our constituents, our land, and our economy.

In recent months, I have been involved in scrutinising the plan in the Economy and Fair Work Committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I have also been involved in meetings with the climate change plan team and the advisory group. I have attempted to engage constructively with the cabinet secretary by sharing concerns and giving her lots of suggestions about how we can improve the plan, because it has to work.

I thank all those across the Parliament, particularly the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, who have been involved in the consultation exercises that have been carried out to engage people on the issue.

A document cannot do this—we all have to do it together. The challenge is that, although there are areas of ambition in the plan, there are also areas from which ambition is entirely missing. As priorities have been chosen, some key elements have been left behind.

It has been excellent in the debate to hear from a raft of parliamentary committees, including the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee; the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee; the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee; and the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. The plan will affect all our committees, and it will require action across the Government. That is absolutely critical. We need investment and action right across the Government and a plan for the future.

I am very conscious that the Government’s climate change plan team is analysing the consultation feedback that it has received and that the final report will be published at the end of the month. The challenge is that, by the end of the month, the Parliament will have dissolved. Ensuring that there is a focus on the climate change plan will be a challenge and an opportunity for the next Parliament, because delivery will be critical. The Climate Change Committee’s report makes it clear that there are gaps in delivery, gaps in understanding and gaps in the practical steps that are needed to meet legally binding targets. The Climate Change Committee’s warning on the second and third Scottish carbon budgets is particularly stark.

Sorry—it will not be from that member, then.

The draft energy strategy was published in January 2023, and we are still waiting for the final version. Just last month, the Just Transition Commission published its report, “No Time to Lose”. It tells us that we need to be working together and to be making the maximum use of the powers that the Scottish Government has. Mark Ruskell made that point, and I totally agree with it.

The report also says that we need a place-based approach for every community. That means that communities and local authorities must have the capacity and the support to deliver in practice. We also need clarity so that sectors can invest, businesses can plan and workers can prepare for the future.

The financial aspects of the climate change plan reveal one of the most concerning gaps. Committees are always told that financial space is very tight, but we need to ensure that there are actual plans and incentives and that every policy has a fully costed financial plan behind it. We need to see that in the final plan.

We also need better monitoring and evaluation. The Climate Change Committee has been explicit that the final plan must include a complete monitoring and evaluation framework with annual sectoral pathways and indicators of progress. That needs to be monitored not just by one committee of this Parliament but by a range of committees, because one committee will never be responsible for everything that is in the climate change plan—everyone must be involved in it.

We also need joined-up thinking and action. When it comes to transport, there are huge opportunities for electrifying rail, cars, buses and other vehicles. We also have opportunities around heat. We need to think through the local supply chains. That need for joined-up action has been referred to in different ways.

We need to think about how we can better use our power near to where it is produced. That is a huge opportunity. It was interesting to hear Paul McLennan’s speech, as a big discussion is happening in the Lothians about the potential for the Berwick Bank wind farm to bring in lots of new electricity. Why do we not use that where it is produced? Why do we not establish heat networks both to use that electricity and as a storage process? We need joined-up thinking.

I mentioned solar energy in my opening comments. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Edinburgh Community Solar Co-operative. I have seen the impact that it has had on buildings that are owned by the City of Edinburgh Council but into which the council has not had to put any investment, because that was done by the co-operative, and it has made money. We should be doing that everywhere, but on a local basis.

I also used to work with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations—again, I declare an interest—where I saw the benefits of solar heat and solar power. We always talk about solar power, but the technology can be used to heat water in our homes. We need a joined-up approach.

We have done a lot with new housing. Patrick Harvie referred to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Following negotiation with the then Deputy First Minister, I sneaked into that act an amendment that all new homes had to have some form of renewables. That has happened and there was constructive work with the building sector. A lot of it is solar but it is not exclusively so.

However, we are not seeing work to decarbonise existing homes and buildings. Kevin Stewart and Bob Doris made points about this. Tenements are critical. In the next session of the Parliament, we need more than a nice-to-have on tenements. We need to think about how we improve the quality of tenements and consider the opportunities for affordable heating—that means heating that people can afford to have on. We did not talk about it, but there are social justice and health issues with heating: an older person needs to have their home at 19°C at least and, if a person has a disability, that is something that they urgently need to be addressed.

There is a lot of work that can be done. I talk about the local issue. Members should think of the local jobs and supply chains if we have a programme and a plan to heat our homes effectively and affordably. We have the warm homes plan in the UK, so let us learn from that.

I will wind up my speech. We need to make the plan an opportunity. We need joined-up thinking across Government and we need to ensure that, in the next session, the climate change plan is not just a job for one of the Cabinet members but a job for every member of the Government. If we do not take that approach, it will mean massive missed opportunities and social challenges in tackling the impact of the climate emergency on Scotland. Let us get on with it and have a proper discussion early doors.

I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy has been listening not just today but for the past however many weeks and months, because there are big opportunities and we need to seize them together.

17:06

It is difficult for young and older people to use their bus passes, because we have lost hundreds of bus routes. East Lothian, West Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh have Lothian Buses, but other parts of the country have no bus services, which is a real challenge. Does the member agree that the final plan should include support for new bus services?

I will mention solar power in my speech, but will the cabinet secretary have a solar plan that fits into the final climate change plan?

I absolutely agree that we need more investment in industrial capacity. Does the member agree that we need to have the ability to produce components for wind farms in Scotland? There were huge opportunities to build turbines. We had one plant, which closed. We need more such plants, because we must create more joined-up economic opportunities if we are to build the country that we need.

I have done so on many occasions. Torness is next door to my constituency, and there are hundreds of skilled and knowledgeable people working there. It is not about building nuclear plants everywhere. It is about using the tech that is available now where we can use it, so that we do not have to import nuclear-powered electricity from down south.

I come back to my point about solar. The Climate Change Committee has made the point that we are not meeting our heat pump targets fast enough; in fact, doing so has been kicked into the second or third Scottish carbon budgets. We need to ensure that there are proper opportunities for all our homes in that regard. The withdrawal of grants for solar panels was a step backwards, because it stopped many people who were about to install a heat pump, knowing that, if they put on solar panels, that would reduce their energy costs. However, that is not happening now. There are also huge missed opportunities for supply chains.

I particularly want to focus on the fact that 25 per cent of homes in Scotland are tenements. There will be a bit of heavy lifting for the final plan there. How will we do it? We are allowed to have joint work in tenements, with people coming together to repair and maintain tenements, so why do we not have such an option for solar heat and heat networks?

We need to think about the practicalities of how this will work, because after years of waiting for the energy strategy, we need action now. From what I have heard at the conferences that I have been to, heat networks are a practical solution for both urban areas and rural areas. All the authorities have a plan, but they need investment and support to implement it.

Transport has also been mentioned by several colleagues. We need a more realistic approach to that. Yes, we need electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, and there has been progress with those, but we need to focus in particular on affordable solutions. Not everyone will be able to afford an EV, and as was raised at the disability conference that we had a couple of weeks ago, not everyone is able to drive, so we need affordable public transport. The bus passes are brilliant, but we need the buses to use them on. We need buses particularly in our rural areas, to enable people to get to work.

Agriculture and land use require a lot more work, and the comments of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee convener on that were important. Farmers and crofters are willing to be part of the transition, but they need clarity, support and fair funding. We need to have a public conversation about the environmental impacts of imported food, the water footprint of global supply chains and the emissions associated with different types of products. We need to support our domestic producers so that the transition is fair for them and so that it is viable.

We also need to look at forestry targets, which are off track. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee has spent a lot of time talking about peatland restoration. There is a huge amount of work to be done on peatlands, and we are leading on it, but there are barriers to delivery. Those two areas are central to our meeting our carbon budgets but also to protecting our natural environment. Let us remember that it is a climate and a nature crisis, so we need joined-up solutions.

We also need action on industrial emissions. The energy issue is key to that, but there is also the issue of support. If we have a clear plan and confident supply chains, industry will make investments. If we partner with Great British Energy and use the national wealth fund, we can get investment that will deliver the energy infrastructure that we need.

The Climate Change Committee has also highlighted the need for credible monitoring and evaluation. We will not have annual targets, but we will need annual pathways for sectoral emissions and clear indicators of progress. That way, if progress is not being made, we do not wait five years to have a catch-up, but get on track and do the work now. Accountability must be built into the system, not added on as an afterthought. The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee also recommends that we have a comprehensive mix of performance indicators across the breadth of the plan.

I think that one of the best ideas is having a dashboard that is accessible to the public, so that they can see what they can contribute and what progress is being made. That would enable us to see where we have made progress and where we need to catch up. Bringing people with us will be critical. People need support, but they also need to understand the benefits of tackling the climate emergency.

We know that more than 400,000 homes and buildings in Scotland are now at risk of flooding in the next decade. That is a real issue, not a theoretical one. We need to tackle the risks of flooding and sea level rise, because there are now vulnerable coastal areas in constituencies across the country. Homes and businesses will be at risk, and the insurance sector is already lobbying us about that. That is why we need a credible climate change plan.

I will come to my conclusion. Long-term action is not where we need to be. We have to be planning now so that for each of the first five, the second five and the third five years, we have a plan for industry, home owners and every sector of our economy. That plan needs to include resilience, adaptation and preparedness, and that will need cross-Government thinking.

I hope that the cabinet secretary takes away the point that all the committees that have been engaged in the discussion have called for more action and more clarity and for getting on with it. We cannot wait. We are almost at the end of this parliamentary session and we are debating the draft plan. The next Parliament needs to debate the final plan and to get on with the action.

15:54

I thank the member for raising that issue, which I, too, have raised. If the agriculture sector is to be able to make the transition that is needed, does it not need long-term assistance schemes that will help to fund innovative farming and change farming practices to give it the support that it needs now, as our climate begins to change?

I am pleased to speak in this stage 3 debate as a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which has scrutinised the bill over recent months. I thank everyone who has provided evidence, as well as my fellow committee members and our clerks for their thoughtful work throughout the process.

Although it is a relatively short bill and the number of amendments was limited, it is vital that legislation in such a fast-moving and technical area receives careful scrutiny. As we move further into a digital age, clarity in the law becomes increasingly important. For that reason, Scottish Labour will support the bill today.

I start off in an unusual position, having agreed with the previous two speakers—one from the Government and one from the Conservatives.

Digital assets are becoming an essential part of Scotland’s economic landscape, as has been mentioned in the debate. Their importance and the opportunities that they bring will only continue to grow.

The Economy and Fair Work Committee supported the Scottish Government’s property law approach for defining digital assets as the best way of future proofing the definition. However, several stakeholders noted that the terminology and approach would not be familiar to those who work in the sector, which could make it difficult for those working with digital assets to ensure that the law applies to them in the way that they expected. That summarises the concerns that we discussed about the implementation and understanding of digital assets. When the bill is passed, we need to reflect on how to communicate it so that people understand how the law will work.

The stage 3 amendments that the minister lodged are particularly important in relation to the removal of the requirement for “exclusive control”. Those sensible amendments have improved the clarity of the bill. The concept of exclusivity is not necessary for establishing ownership, and removing it brings the law on digital assets more in line with how we treat physical property.

For legislation of this nature, it is crucial that the legal framework is understandable and workable. As Dr Alisdair MacPherson and Professor Burcu Yüksel Ripley have highlighted, Scotland has very limited legislation in relation to new forms of digital assets, so reform is needed to provide certainty for individuals, businesses and our courts.

The committee noted that the environmental impact of digital assets has not yet been fully considered. The minister acknowledged that that sits within a wider discussion about energy consumption and sustainable power sources, which are issues that apply to many emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. As Scotland has significant renewable energy capacity, we should ensure that the development of digital assets aligns with our ambitions for net zero. Continued research into the environmental implications of such technologies is essential.

Digital assets have the potential to support our transition to net zero in practical ways. For example, the Scottish Government’s energy skills passport—launched as a digital platform to help workers to move from the oil and gas sector to the renewables sector—shows how digital tools can support workforce transition, but delays and limited uptake demonstrate the need for clearer systems and better integration. Our agreeing to a stronger legal framework for digital assets today might help to ensure that such initiatives are more effective in the future.

Ultimately, the bill’s purpose is to clarify the status of digital assets as property in Scots private law. Doing so will provide greater certainty for individuals, businesses, investors and the legal sector.

As new technologies emerge, new risks will inevitably follow. It will be the Parliament’s responsibility in future years to ensure that the law keeps pace. We need to use digital technologies in ways that are fair, transparent and beneficial for Scotland. Let us agree to pass the bill, because it will reflect progress.

14:40

The opportunity for the next Parliament is that there will be a final plan that it can scrutinise and focus on. Given the huge turnover of parliamentarians, it is critical that the next Parliament prioritises discussion on the issue across the Government and across parties as soon as members are returned.

Many things need to be addressed, including electrification, which several colleagues have talked about.

One of the most concerning omissions from the plan is solar power; there is an absence of any real consideration of it. It is one of the cheapest and quickest-to-deploy renewable technologies available, yet it is hardly present in the plan.

Solar Energy UK has been clear in its evidence that the absence of solar and battery storage is a major strategic failure that risks undermining our wider energy ambitions. The Scottish Government should maintain the ambition of 4GW to 6GW solar capacity by 2030, and it should go further to commit to a 9GW target for 2035. That commitment could include rooftop solar and ground-mounted solar farms, which are now compatible with agriculture, and should involve thinking about where battery storage fits in. We need a joined-up plan. Solar Energy UK has called for a sector deal for solar to recognise that the tech can make a real contribution.

I want to focus on the issue of housing.