Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—it sounds as if it has been a popular committee in the chamber today—I associate myself with the thanks from the convener and other colleagues to all the clerks, witnesses, stakeholders and other committees that participated in scrutiny of the bill. I also thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their constructive and open engagement with MSPs. I hope that that continues throughout stages 2 and 3.

Today, we have heard constructive contributions from colleagues across the chamber, who told us that the bill is in reasonably good shape but that there is more work to do. Many of the insights and questions that we have put to the Government and to each other are informed by the evidence that the committee took at stage 1, as well as by stakeholders who continue to send us briefings and information. It is important that Government and Parliament continue to listen.

When the committee’s convener, Edward Mountain, made his opening remarks, he set the tone and the theme. At the committee, we were very much in a reflective mood. That is apt in the Parliament’s 25th year, but those of us on the committee, as well as members in the chamber today, have expressed regret that we are in this situation. However, part of the theme has also been a reset, which is a constructive challenge to us all. Katy Clark talked about collective action. I will offer some reflections on the points of agreement that we have heard about.

Douglas Lumsden was correct to say that parliamentary scrutiny should not be the loser. We all want to work at speed—we know that we need to catch up—but we need robust scrutiny. Maurice Golden said that we need a robust reporting regime, and we in Scottish Labour agree with that. That is why I hope that we will continue to work with the Scottish Government at stages 2 and 3 on the recommendations that we have made. Overall, the 21 recommendations in the committee’s report are really important.

I did not hear a lot of disagreement on carbon budgeting. In the committee’s report, we settled on the view that

“a framework based on carbon budgeting is better and a more flexible system for setting targets for emissions reductions than the current approach.”

I am hearing that, across the chamber, we all share ambition. None of us wants missed targets or missed opportunities. We have heard from Labour members and others in the chamber that we want a just transition, because not getting it will put jobs and our communities at risk. Maurice Golden rightly said that we cannot afford more failure.

People have given examples of the policies that they feel frustrated about. Scottish Labour and the Scottish Greens share the frustration around the reinstatement of peak rail fares, which not only is the wrong decision but sends the wrong message to the public. We have heard comments about taking the public with us and giving people certainty and confidence; that decision does not send the right message.

Mark Ruskell set out that we must absolutely root the bill in the science. Parliament has always tried to do that. Where we need to have debate is on the detailed policy measures that we need to take, because the detailed policy pathway has been missing. Scottish Labour is fully committed to working with the Government and others on that point, but we need to get into the detail of the policies that are required.

It was good to hear from colleagues who have been here a bit longer than I have, such as Liam McArthur. I thank him for reminding us of the massive contribution that Claudia Beamish made when she was in Parliament. We heard an exchange between Liam McArthur and Mark Ruskell about what the right targets should have been—let us get into such a detailed discussion and have that passion when we talk about policy and action, because we have a policy vacuum right now, which will not get us very far.

Jackie Dunbar talked about the fact that, in Parliament, things can be exciting or important. Getting to net zero is exciting and important—it is essential. I hope that it will bind us all together.

I do not think that Michael Matheson saw me when I tried to intervene on him, but I am interested in hearing how we knock down the barriers. Sarah Boyack and others talked about the need to work cross-Government, and that is about wider society and local government, too. There are obviously barriers there. When Michael Matheson was Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, he also had a cross-Government role.

We need to learn those lessons fast—

I will try to be as brief as I can, Presiding Officer. It is great when colleagues such as Graham Simpson come to the committee, because it shows the interest in the issue that there is across the Parliament. I hope that he will continue to come to the committee.

Graham Simpson regularly raises the issue of bus travel, and the fact that we have many communities that hardly have a bus to speak of. Does he agree that we need to see more policy, more action and more investment in that and that it is something that should unite the Parliament?

I think that I have only a few seconds left, but I will take the intervention.

Will the member take an intervention?

We have discussed this issue in committee, but has the cabinet secretary given further consideration to being as open as possible with Parliament about the work that is done on the climate change plan, so that we do not have to wait until the CCC advice is received?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the justice secretary has had with Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding their role in addressing food crime, in light of reports of counterfeit vodka being seized in the Central Scotland region. (S6O-03822)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that important public health message, and I thank the organisations that have been involved in the measures that she described. However, the matter is really concerning. In one shop in Coatbridge, 40 bottles of fake vodka were seized. More than 240 bottles in total have been confiscated in the central belt alone.

There is a real workforce issue. Food Standards Scotland is under pressure and we do not have enough trading standards officers. What discussions are taking place across Government to ensure that we have the right workforce? What is being done to stop those criminal gangs?

I ask the cabinet secretary to say something brief about toxicology. Is she confident that there are no delays in that?

We have been talking about some of the capacity issues. In the improvement plan, the Scottish Government highlights that local authorities have “increasingly stretched resources”, but adhering to the reporting of scope 3 emissions will result in additional reporting and, possibly, the need for additional staff training. Silke Isbrand, do we know how much additional resource and training will be required to deliver mandatory reporting to a good standard?

Is there a risk that this will become a tick-box exercise? We have heard that there are training needs and that the methodology is underdeveloped. Local authorities could gather lots of data, but that might not result in much change on the ground. How do we minimise the risk of this becoming a tick-box exercise, particularly in the early years?

That is why I am interested in what resource will be required. Some local authorities are using external consultants, but that can be quite expensive. In order to be certain or confident that we are getting good value for taxpayers’ money, would it not be reasonable to start to provide some figures and work out what is needed to do this properly and well?