Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will try to squeeze quite a lot in here. I am conscious of the time, and we have had some really good evidence today.

I will come to you first, Jonnie. I read NFU Scotland’s written submission to the committee with interest. I want to be clear about this in my mind, as some of what you have said today differs from some of the written comments that you made. In your written submission you say that NFU Scotland is

“broadly supportive of the overall aim of the Bill to criminalise the most serious forms of environmental harm.”

You go on to say that you

“understand that the Bill intends to fill a gap between existing environmental regulations and criminal law, similar to other Ecocide legislation found across other countries, and acts as a deterrent for the most egregious and reckless actions that could cause irreversible damage to ecosystems.”

You also say that

“The Bill will be unlikely to affect day-to-day operations of most agricultural businesses”

and that you

“are satisfied with the number of safeguards within the Bill,”

while calling for “clearer guidance”.

I just want to check, because the committee will look at written and oral evidence. Is there anything in your written evidence that you want to change or clarify?

I will take that. That is good news.

Thank you.

I just want to add briefly that this has been an important petition, and I thank the petitioner and the other stakeholders who contributed to our scrutiny of it. It is right that we write to the Scottish Government again for an update and some clarity, and I agree with Mark Ruskell’s points about the importance of keeping pace with the WHO guidelines. I am sure that, if there are opportunities in the time that we have left, the committee will ask suitable questions, but this should be an important issue for future committees in the next session of Parliament.

I will turn to the issue of waste. It is the eighth highest-emitting sector in Scotland, so we know that we have a lot to do in reducing waste and becoming a more circular economy. My question is about the infrastructure for energy from waste. Scotland has a moratorium on that, but energy production from waste emissions continues to increase and new plants are in the pipeline and have planning consent, although they have not yet been built. It would be helpful to clarify the assumptions that the Climate Change Committee has made about Scotland’s total capacity for energy from waste and the implications that that might have for Scotland.

Next week, our committee will be hearing from witnesses on the latest climate science and on climate impacts in Scotland. Today, we have been addressing Scotland’s emissions, but it would be helpful to hear from you briefly about where we are globally on emissions reductions and whether Scotland should be preparing for greater levels of climate change than we might have been expecting a few years ago.

On that hopeful note, I will hand back to the convener.

If we are to have significant progress, we need to see more work on waste reduction and a system change in embedding reuse and repair in our daily lives, our communities and our industries. Does the CCC have any advice for the Scottish Government about which measures will be needed to support our local authorities and the third sector to make that easier for people? We talk a lot about behaviour and about culture change, but how can we make that easier for people? What are the levers at UK level? We are in danger of giving the public mixed messages if we ramp up the infrastructure for energy from waste at a time when we are still struggling to do more recycling and to be more efficient with resources. Regarding bigger industries, is there anything that you can say about construction and about the vehicle and textile industries, which are some of the biggest emitters of waste?

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. I return to the issue of surface transport because it is our highest emitting sector. We have had some important questions from Kevin Stewart, but, if I may, I will dig in a little further. Some good schemes have been highlighted, such as the scrapping of peak rail fares and the concessionary travel schemes for under-22s and older people in Scotland. When I speak to constituents and other people around Scotland, however, they want public transport to be more integrated, to be easier to use and to be more reliable. Affordability is an issue, but people want to be able to get around as quickly as possible and to avoid congestion.

How can we make the bus more attractive to people? I had a quick look at the figures, and I think that it is still the case that bus patronage in Scotland is declining. That has been a trend for the past decade, notwithstanding the period of Covid lockdowns. In contrast, in Greater Manchester, where there is an ambitious bus strategy, there has been a recovery in bus patronage.

Are there examples elsewhere in the UK or internationally that you would like to bring to our attention and to the attention of the Scottish Government? How do we achieve the balance between carrot and stick? I am quite concerned that Glasgow City Council is proposing road charging for people who visit the city at a time when public transport is still not as good as it needs to be.

I want to ask a final question, if I may. I am aware that some political actors would probably rename this committee the Net Stupid Zero Committee, which I would strongly resist. On a serious point, though, there has been a change in mood in how we discuss climate and net zero issues. What is the best advice that you could give politicians and Governments who are faced with these challenges on how we can continue to develop evidence-based policy and action to counter some of the political slogans that have developed?