Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for that update. It is clear that it is not acceptable for correspondence from Scottish ministers to be ignored by UK ministers, and I hope that that issue will be resolved. However, it appears that there have been differences in how the Welsh Government has interacted with the UK Government. Perhaps colleagues on the other side of the chamber could provide insight into that, because that is another point of frustration. Scottish Labour does not have access to the legal advice that either Government gets, so we need more transparency on that.

The cabinet secretary and Donald Cameron spoke well and fairly about the fact that there is lots of agreement about what the bill seeks to achieve. There is little policy difference.

I turn to the amendments on forest risk commodities and deforestation. Alice Lucas, writing for the Fairtrade Foundation, reminds us that

“poverty and deforestation fuel each other in a negative cycle”

and that deforestation is

“wreaking havoc on the planet and its people”.

Today, many of us are wearing challenge poverty week badges. It would be good to be using our time to debate and discuss climate justice and to look at the impact of poverty, but here we are debating legislative consent instead.

To be honest, we are not quite sure how we have reached this point, but it seems to us that there should have been much earlier engagement and discussion between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It will not be for Labour members to solve that, but we urge people to work more closely together. To make real progress in tackling the climate and nature emergencies, we need both Governments to work together to deliver strong environmental protections.

I move amendment S6M-01512.2, to leave out from “further calls on” to end and insert:

“is disappointed that the UK and Scottish governments have failed to have early and constructive dialogue on the environmental protections that are required, and believes that parliamentary time would be better spent on measures to address the global climate emergency.”

I am sure that the minister recognises that she is in a position in which she can do something. I heard from her colleague the cabinet secretary that she wrote a letter in June, I think, a month after she came into office. That is great to hear, but is that all that she has done—written a letter and sat back? What else is she doing to get a response from UK ministers?

It is customary to say that I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. I am pleased, but I feel frustrated. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I have been following the issue closely and I put on record my thanks to the clerks of the that committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, colleagues in the Scottish Parliament information centre, who have been working hard, and the cabinet secretary for his time at committee.

However, here we are, and I am not sure that we are any further forward. Our situation partly reflects the collective failure of Scotland’s two Governments to work together in the interests of Scottish people. The impact of Brexit on the UK’s constitutional framework has been huge and it demands that we approach more areas on a common UK basis. It is in our interests and the climate’s best interests for the UK and Scottish Governments to build a stronger and more productive relationship to make that possible. The current governing structures are not fit for purpose.

To date, the Tories’ approach to Brexit has been a shambles and they have sought to undermine the Scottish Parliament on a number of occasions, but the SNP has not helped by engaging in megaphone diplomacy and resorting to banging on about independence rather than seeking to find consensus where we need it. I hope that that explains why we feel frustrated.

Scottish Labour has a proud record of standing up for our devolved powers and we will continue to do so. It is important that I emphasise that we share the Scottish Government’s opposition to the Tories’ contesting Scottish Parliament legislation in the way that they have. If the Scottish Government feels as strongly as I think it does, why was a challenge not taken to the Supreme Court to get clarity on the matter?

Abortion rights are under attack around the world and, here in Scotland, women are being harassed as they try to access abortion clinics safely. The implementation of buffer zones around clinics has stalled, and campaigners such as Back Off Scotland are looking to the Scottish Government for leadership and support.

Does the First Minister agree that anyone who accesses abortion healthcare in Scotland should be able to do so safely and free from harassment? Will the Government reassess its position on legislating for abortion clinic buffer zones?

South Lanarkshire Council said that it would install more than 100 electric vehicle charging points, but it has cut that plan by 42 per cent. Notwithstanding the challenges of the pandemic, a £1 million fleet of electric vehicles has barely left the council car park in a year. Charging is a big concern. What can the Scottish Government do to help South Lanarkshire Council to expand local charging networks and make people feel more confident about using electric vehicles?

The discussion so far has been fascinating. Indeed, I have had the privilege of taking part in some Zoom events with climate assembly members and I have met some of the children involved here in the Parliament.

I have so many questions to ask, but I suppose that I have to start somewhere. I was struck by Jocelyn Richard’s earlier comment that people want to do the right things and that we need to tackle climate change in a way that is fair to everyone. Can you give me a sense of some of the barriers that were discussed by the assembly? I know that the 100 or so people involved in the assembly came from different backgrounds but, aside from education and perhaps knowledge, what other barriers are people facing in making these behavioural changes? How concerned are people about the affordability of some of the proposals and the possible impact on people who are already experiencing, for example, fuel poverty, which has been mentioned?

Perhaps Jocelyn Richard can start. I am happy for others to answer, too.

Thank you, Jocelyn. I wonder whether Katie Reid has anything to add from the children’s perspective. I remember a previous chat that we had when I learned that some of the children who came to Parliament had never been on public transport before and that politicians are in danger of making assumptions about people’s living standards and knowledge. How do we ensure that everyone can play their part in tackling climate change and that issues such as poverty and lack of awareness are not holding young people back?

I was just briefly reflecting on how, when we met some young people at the Parliament, some of them said that that had been the first time they had been on a train, and I suggested that we often make assumptions about people’s living standards and backgrounds. How do we ensure that this activity is really inclusive and that all children can participate? We have talked about the importance of education, but what else can we do?

Good morning to the minister and his officials.

The policy is very welcome, but what is the Government’s response to the everyone aboard campaign, which is led by the Poverty Alliance and supported by 120 organisations and seeks to expand this scheme to everyone under 25 and people in receipt of benefits? Is that the direction of travel that the Government wants to go in? At what point will the scheme be reviewed after it comes into force next January?

We are all concerned about biodiversity loss. I have heard that organisations are concerned about the loss of expert biodiversity officers and staff from local government. Are you aware of that? Is the workforce available to advise local government on biodiversity declining? If not, what can be done to address that?