Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would the member reflect on the fact that his colleagues often use the phrase “extremist Greens”? Does he believe that that is acceptable, or that it is in fact fuelling a lack of consensus in the chamber?

I will try to strike a note of consensus with Maurice Golden. I am a trier, so I will at least try. I share the disappointment and sense of loss that the 2030 climate target is now out of reach, although I am heartened that net zero by 2045 remains achievable and on track.

The 2030 target was agreed on a cross-party basis, and there were two factors that drove the target upwards and, admittedly, beyond the advice of the Climate Change Committee. The first was the science of what is needed in this decade to globally reduce emissions and the recognition in 2019 that to achieve that in a fair way means that Scotland needs to do far more than countries in the global south. The second reason the target was set so high in the 2019 act was the deep frustration at a lack of Government action, especially in the areas of agriculture, transport and housing. Sectors that had seen next to no progress for decades were able to hide behind the big emissions reductions that were achieved from renewable electricity generation, but it was obvious that, going forward, there would be no place to hide.

The belief in 2019 was that a high target with the most robust legal framework in the world behind it would drive the action that was missing from the previous Scottish climate change plans. That belief was pushed very hard by people in the climate movement, and they found cross-party support for it in the chamber, but the hope that the 2030 target would drive climate action demonstrably failed. The climate plan that was published in 2020 did not show a credible path to the 2030 target, and the UK CCC warned that the Government needed to double down on action if it was to have any hope of meeting it.

I am trying to strike a consensus with Mr Golden. His initial speech did not strike a consensus and confirmed my decision not to sign the motion.

I turn back to the substance of the debate. Mr Golden will remember that the Parliament’s committees were scathing in their analysis of the climate change plan. Cross-party committees suggested more than 80 recommendations to improve the plan. That was the point at which the 2030 target was lost because, without the commitment to early transformative action, an already stretching target very quickly became completely unachievable.

Covid certainly did not help with the Government’s focus, and Westminster austerity has decimated the availability of the capital investment that is needed for programmes. However, fundamentally, a climate plan that failed to put the action that was needed up front was always going to lead to an unachievable target.

For Greens, entering the Bute house agreement and the Scottish Government for the first time, in 2021, was always going to be a risk, but I am proud of the achievements of our group over the past two and a half years as a result of working constructively with SNP ministers on climate issues. I ask those ministers to build on that momentum rather than to dismantle it.

For example, the heat in buildings programme, which was spearheaded by Patrick Harvie, has been singled out by the CCC as a template for the rest of the UK. It is a clear example of the action that was needed back in 2020 to build up supply chains, get costs down, drive through regulations and start planning for major investments. I urge ministers to build on that work in order to reach a critical mass of action, with the number of retrofits of homes accelerating year on year.

There are many other areas in which ambition and action have been accelerated by having Greens in the Government, from the doubling of onshore wind capacity that is under way to the unprecedented scale of active travel infrastructure that is appearing in our towns and cities.

Critically, those who argue for strong targets need to commit to the action that is needed to meet them. I say to Mr Golden that the contradictions play out in the chamber all the time. Just the other week, Tory MSPs—many of whom are here today—championed another members’ business debate, on stopping new electricity pylon lines. If they are successful in their campaign, there will be no way for Scotland or the UK to come anywhere near to meeting our climate obligations. That is a fact.

The 2030 target might be lost—I grieve for it—but the need for action has never been greater. All members of this Parliament must commit to such action or be prepared to tell future generations why they sold them out.

The Secretary of State for Scotland made the unilateral decision to block Scotland’s deposit return scheme. He has refused to come to Parliament to explain that decision to MSPs and has failed to provide the evidence that was requested by the Scottish and Welsh Governments for why he excluded glass from the UK scheme, which is, as the minister rightly said, a “non-existent” scheme. The decision has made a mockery of the devolved settlement. [Interruption.]

What has been the wider impact on policy making here in this Parliament, when we have a UK Government that is prepared to act in a reckless way, cheered on by those who do not have the interests of Scotland’s environment at heart?

I am interested in pursuing that line of questioning with David Decrock. My impression of the energy sector, which is very innovative, is that it is quite multinational in that, rather than being based in one particular region of a country where a specialist workforce can be recruited, it is very much spread across countries in a thematic way, with the innovation being to do with collaboration and partnership. When you walk into a room where a group of companies are working together in partnership, what does the sector look like? Are all the people from one place, or is it a multinational workforce that collaborates in different ways?

Thanks—that is good. Gareth?

I have been reflecting on the challenges that your members have in relation to the loss of free movement of labour across the EU and the UK, and it would be good to get into a bit more detail about what would work for businesses. I am looking at the UK Government’s application page for the skilled worker visa, on which there are obviously a number of restrictions: your job has to be “eligible” for the visa in the first place; you must

“work for a UK employer that’s been approved by the Home Office;”

and the minimum salary has to be £38,700 per year, or higher, there is a higher going rate for the work that you will be doing.

Do those rules work for your businesses? If they do not, how would you want those rules to be modified in order for labour to meet the needs of businesses in the UK? Catherine, do you want to start?

Please do.

That is fine.

I turn to Jan Robertson and Ewen Cameron. We are now in a phase where there are border checks for goods that are coming into the UK. We have taken evidence from a number of businesses that have supply chains that run not just within the UK but across Europe. I am interested to know how, with your European colleagues, you support the whole supply chain. Is there now a conversation about how the existing border checks have been working? What lessons can be learned on imports? What are the top tips, whether we are talking about drivers or minimising paperwork bureaucracy? How do you work together to ensure that business, wherever it is located in Europe, is able to negotiate and navigate the bureaucracy that Brexit has thrown up?

Are there any other sectors that struggle with that?