Seòmar agus comataidhean

Sorry.

Can the cabinet secretary say more about how the Scottish Government will ensure that victims and organisations that represent victims are consulted on the proposed legislation? How will victims and their families be informed of the release of prisoners, if and when that happens?

My intervention is perfectly timed, as there is quite a lot of time left on the clock for Sarah Boyack to speak. Might you want to use that time to say what you would have done differently in the past years?

As a former member, and still a substitute member, of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I am very pleased to speak in this important debate. I put on record my thanks to, and admiration for, the clerks and the work that they have done in a very pressing timescale to progress the bill to stage 2. I also commend the work of the committee convener and the other members.

The timescale, as Jackie Dunbar mentioned, relates to the question of purdah and the general election. That raises a question as to why the UK Parliament does not have to consider when this Parliament is in an election period—it is only the other way round that there are issues with timetabling, which puts pressure on us.

I move to the bill. We know that, back in the spring, the Climate Change Committee made a public announcement on the challenges around the 2030 target, and the Government has responded with this proposed primary legislation and the changes that are set out therein.

That comes from a position where there has been much progress. Of course, we are all disappointed that the progress has not—because of various factors—been significant enough to meet the 2030 target but, as the cabinet secretary said, we have to be realistic.

That being said, the figures confirm that Scotland is now halfway to net zero, achieving the largest reduction in emissions of any nation in the UK, and decarbonising faster than the European Union 27 average. At the same time, our economy has grown by 67 per cent in real terms, which demonstrates that tackling climate change and growing the economy can go hand in hand—I will come back to that in a minute.

That is a brilliant point from Sarah Boyack and I could not agree more; I have said the same on many occasions in the chamber and round the committee table. I refer to the evidence that Chris Stark gave to the committee on 23 April, in which he made that point clearly. If I have time, I will come back to that.

With regard to our success, as well as reducing emissions in order to meet the targets, and as well as the social and economic benefits that Sarah Boyack and others have outlined, we should not forget the technological skills and knowledge development that has taken place over that period. For example, there is the innovation that has happened in my constituency through Nova Innovation, the tidal energy company. It is not only developing engineering solutions and expertise that can be utilised—whether it is in research or in manufacturing product—elsewhere in the world; it is also exporting technology that is reducing emissions elsewhere.

It is not just about Scotland’s impact on reducing emissions here, because we have to be realistic: our contribution to global climate change is very small. If we want to contribute to meeting the wider challenge, it is what we export in terms of expertise, knowledge and technology that will make the biggest impact.

To go back to the bill, one of the main points is the multiyear carbon budgets. Those can provide a more reliable framework for sustained progress in emissions reduction, as volatility is smoothed out over the budget period. That position is reflected by the Climate Change Committee, which has advised that carbon budgets are the most appropriate indicator of underlying progress in emissions reduction. That model is well established and is used by other countries such as France, Japan and Wales.

Carbon budgets will also help in the management and navigation of public opinion and trying to take people with us, and in addressing the political challenges in a competitive democracy when political parties are considering their offers at election time.

As Chris Stark said in an answer to me,

“the point is that there is the idea that something that goes beyond the parliamentary cycle must be done, and that it is the responsibility of Government in each of those parliamentary cycles to keep the show on the road. That is easier with carbon budgets, because you are pointing towards a thing that will go into the next session of Parliament, the one after that, and the one after that. There is then a duty on Government to do the right things in that session.”

In relation to our collective political challenge, five-year carbon budgets should be useful, if we pass this legislation.

We need to take the people with us, which is a challenge and a responsibility for all political parties. As other members, including Sarah Boyack, who intervened on me, have emphasised, and to quote Chris Stark again,

“The benefits to this country of achieving net zero are immense—not just to the climate but in the form of jobs, to the landscape around us, to trade and to a host of social issues. Those reasons, alongside the climate benefits, are why you should want to pursue net zero.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 23 April 2024; c 45, 47.]

Warmer homes, reducing the cost of electricity, cleaner air, more exercise, a better diet and better use of land—all those things are part of it.

I have not heard all the evidence that the committee took at stage 1 but, when the bill was published, I thought that its title should perhaps be the “Net Zero (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill”. I think that that would be a more accurate descriptor and maybe something that the Government could think about.

As the Lord Advocate referenced in the statement, one reason why the remand population is very high relates to concerns that people will not turn up at court. Will the Lord Advocate say a bit more about what is being done to help to ensure attendance at court and, potentially, to undertake trials in absence?

I thank the minister for giving way and I am sorry to interrupt just as she was concluding.

What the minister was saying reminded me of something that we have discussed previously in Parliament—namely, the availability of high-sugar energy drinks, which Gillian Mackay mentioned. The Government has considered restrictions on those in the past, and I note that the UK Government is now considering that, too. Perhaps the Scottish Government could review that as part of its considerations.

I pay tribute to Clare Haughey for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I endorse and support much of what she and other colleagues have said.

However, I want to speak about a particular issue that is related to liver disease and which a constituent asked me to talk about on their behalf. In recent years, my constituent, who is in their 50s, developed bile duct cancer. According to AMMF The Cholangiocarcinoma Charity, which is the relevant charity, it is a brutal diagnosis, because the five-year survival rate is between 2 and 9 per cent, depending on various factors. Unfortunately, less than 30 per cent of patients survive 12 months, mainly because the symptoms tend to present when it is already too late and because practitioners do not always consider cholangiocarcinoma—excuse me if I am not pronouncing that correctly; I am not a clinician—despite the fact that it is now almost as common as hepatocellular carcinoma, which is the most common form of liver cancer.

My constituent told me that surgery is the only potentially curative treatment but that less than 20 per cent of patients proceed to it. My constituent has had surgery at Edinburgh royal infirmary in recent years, and they continue to be monitored by the oncology team at the Western general hospital. Like many of my constituents, they are very grateful to NHS Lothian for its superb care and treatment.

My constituent wanted me to talk about this today, because they inform me that other life-extending treatments are emerging and that some have already been approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium. These therapies, which target particular gene mutations, are proving to be highly effective. My constituent states that, for example, ivosidenib, which was approved by the SMC last month, has been shown to be more than effective by doubling life expectancy. However, there are some challenges. My constituent has stated that, unlike other places, NHS Scotland does not fund the genomic testing that is necessary to identify all the new treatment options, and that is why I am speaking today.

I appreciate that there is a lot of detail to this and that the minister might not be able to respond today, but I just wanted to highlight the issue of bile duct cancer, as well as the other issues around liver disease that have been aired by colleagues. On the basis of the experience of my constituent and, indeed, experiences of others that have helped in the past—there will, of course, be others across Scotland—it is clear that dealing with this particular type of cancer is an important part of the debate.

Perhaps the minister could write to me so that I can relay to my constituents what can be done to create cohesion between the Scottish Medicines Consortium approvals process and the necessary testing to ensure that NHS Scotland patients can benefit from advances in medical science in this area.

During recent weeks, a number of constituents have contacted me regarding concerning incidents that have taken place on Scottish Government-owned land in Granton. Most worryingly, a fire was started that damaged a substation and left local residents without an electricity supply for many hours. The land is designated for an exciting new development by the National Galleries of Scotland, which I hope will proceed soon. In the meantime, however, my constituents and I would be grateful if the First Minister and colleagues could quickly consider how the Scottish Government can take more action to secure the land to reduce risk, criminality and antisocial behaviour in the area.

I regularly ask myself that important question, but there is also a context. As I was about to say, the issue is about more than just supply and demand in this whole scenario. I think that the question that Miles Briggs has raised is about how we increase the supply, particularly of build-to-rent properties. The Labour Party, which lodged the motion, was once upon a time enthusiastic about rent controls—in fact, it tried to compete with our Green colleagues to be the most enthusiastic about rent controls—and now it is arguing against them. [Interruption.] The problem with all of this is the party politics and the petty, sticking-plaster politics. Can we confront this really serious issue for our constituents with solutions and constructive dialogue? [Interruption.] The impact of the ability to buy on homelessness and on the cost of rents affects all our constituencies.

I have a briefing in front of me—others will mention it—about the things that Labour could have done. Labour has been in power in Edinburgh for 35 of my 40 years. I am sure that others will talk about the housing capacity that was sold off by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive. We could go into all of that, but what we need to do, more importantly, is think about the way forward.

I thought that the members who made points about solutions were the most helpful, and I am going to end with a few things that I want to emphasise as solutions to make a positive difference. First, in urban Scotland, we really need to think about the cost of land—others have mentioned it. The cost of land in urban Scotland is one of the primary factors behind why purchasing a home is so difficult.

As a Parliament, as we go into the next 25 years and enter this next chapter of devolution—perhaps we will not have 25 years of devolution because we might, of course, become an independent country in that time—