Seòmar agus comataidhean

Let me finish my point first.

As parliamentarians, we have a collective responsibility to take responsibility for that and show the leadership that is necessary in order to address it, rather than looking for excuses to chase after voters who are drifting to Reform UK.

Good morning. I want to stick with the themes of infrastructure and adaptation. It has become clear this morning that there is a need for investment in infrastructure to meet the growing change that we are witnessing in our own climate, and to mitigate some of the risks that will we face in the future. Have you a view on whether there should be a hierarchy of priority on what infrastructure we need to start to adapt now in order to meet the risks that we face? Perhaps I could come to Professor Renaud first on that, given his expertise in climate resilience.

Yes.

Finally, how large a part can nature-based solutions play in our climate adaptation approach?

I want to stick with the theme of the electrification of heavy goods vehicles, because I was quite struck by the evidence that was provided by the CCC on that area. The CCC specifically stated that, by 2030, it expects 6 per cent of our HGVs to be battery electric. By 2045, the committee expects, if I am reading its publication correctly, 84 per cent of HGVs to be battery electric.

I am not going to get into whether it will be hydrogen or battery electric. I suspect that it will be more battery electric than hydrogen; that is just where I think the technology is.

I find the timescale for those figures to be completely unachievable, which I think is due to two factors. One is that, as it stands at the moment, we do not have a grid infrastructure to build out sufficiently on electric car charging facilities. There are constraints across the grid; we cannot get new charging points put in because there is no capacity, so I do not think that it will be delivered. That is one reason that will constrain us.

The second reason is that it will involve a huge amount of capital investment for companies to turn over their vehicles in that period of time. If we look at what happened with electric cars, for early adopters, they were very expensive—and they remain expensive, although the CCC is saying that price parity will be achieved between 2026 and 2028.

It is fine in theory, but, in practice, I do not think that it will be delivered, and if it is not delivered, what is the alternative?

There is no doubt that aspects of the process are far from ideal. If you were to design it, you would not design it in the way that it has been done. Some of Mark Ruskell’s comments are perfectly valid and reasonable. Clearly, we always want to reflect on the process, how the issues are handled and how the process will be managed in order to see what we can learn for future parliamentary sessions. However, we cannot get away from the fact that we face a climate and nature emergency and we have a collective responsibility to take action. I could follow Douglas Lumsden and produce a list of what I would describe as flimsy excuses for not supporting the motion, but all that that would do is demonstrate a lack of leadership to deal with one of the biggest global crises that we face.

When I talk about things such as “flimsy excuses”, I refer to, for example, your suggestion that electricity is in some way pinned to the international gas price in the UK, when that is a fact; it is what drives our electricity costs. Your party was in government at Westminster for more than a decade and it could have taken action on that if it had chosen to do so. The reality is that it chose not to. Equally, during that time, the Conservatives supported the need to ensure that we achieved net zero by 2050.

In the UK and Scotland, it is not optional; it is a legislative requirement. We are legally obliged to achieve net zero by 2045 and 2050. As parliamentarians, if we choose to ignore that based on flimsy excuses, we are not doing our job properly. That is why I will vote for the motion, even though I accept that parts of the process are not as effective as they could be. I accept the responsibility that we have to tackle the nature and climate emergencies that we face, not only for this generation but for future generations.

I am always getting my numbers mixed up, like you, convener.

Amendment 488 agreed to.

Amendments 489 and 490 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Amendment 508A moved—[Tim Eagle].

Yes, thank you. I have considered both amendments, which would, if I have read them correctly, effectively end Crown Estate Scotland’s role and functions. However, I am not clear about a couple of issues.

First, I am not entirely sure whether local authorities have the capacity and capability to undertake devolved foreshore responsibilities, given the significant challenges that they face in dealing with planning matters as it stands. There is a capacity and capability issue.

My second point is about aspects of spatial planning. It appears to me that, in order to ensure that the rationale for the approach that is being taken across the country is clearly understood, it makes more sense to take a consistent approach to dealing with spatial planning matters, on the foreshore and beyond, and to do so in a single organisation.

My third point is that I imagine that the challenge of passing that responsibility to local authorities is likely to result in a potential variation in approach, which will make policy at a foreshore level less transparent. How different local authorities take planning decisions on foreshore matters could also raise fairness issues.

Notwithstanding my interpretation that the amendments effectively do away with Crown Estate Scotland, the issue is whether local authorities have capacity and capability in the first place. On spatial planning, they would ultimately lead to the challenge of different organisations dealing with different things in different parts of the country, which could create transparency and fairness issues when it comes to how the process is applied.

No—oh, sorry. Yes.