Seòmar agus comataidhean

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate about our collective fiscal sustainability, in which we are looking back, considering where we are and thinking about where we go from here.

When it comes to the story of the United Kingdom economy and public finances over the past few years, it is hard to feel anything but sadness and depression at the self-inflicted damage that has been done. Not only has living under the cloud of austerity been psychologically negative for the whole country; it has had real-world consequences. It has damaged our GDP and resulted in a sense of social apathy, which, arguably, has led to the making of bad decisions such as that on the Brexit vote elsewhere in the UK. There is more pressure on public services, which has just built up and up, and has made things more difficult when we have had to deal with external events such as the Covid pandemic.

The list goes on. Austerity was a choice made before the 2010 coalition Government, but it has certainly persisted since, at UK level. Combined with unnecessarily low pay in the private sector in particular, it has done a huge amount of social and economic damage in the UK and has arguably led to a sense of decline.

What it has also removed from both the public and private sectors is the capacity for flexibility. Whether in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK, our capacity for measures such as investing in more community justice and taking forward the Christie principles, has reduced because there has just not been enough flexibility in our public finances to undertake them to the extent that they would have made a meaningful difference.

When we look at other countries that did not make such choices—in particular, those across Europe—we see the difference in the damage that has been caused. We see higher GDP and less need for public spending there, because those countries have not created the social problems that we have here in the UK.

How do we move forward and find solutions? There are no easy fixes, but the Scottish Government, with its limited powers, has undoubtedly made the situation here in Scotland more positive. First, public sector wage increases have had a positive effect in the social justice outcomes that have been achieved, but they have also had an indirect effect in the private sector, because the labour market is competitive. That, combined with our approach to social security, has undoubtedly made a difference.

The reason why social security spending is where it is, not just in Scotland but in the rest of the UK, is that the cost of living is so high. Arguably, we should be talking more about the need to stabilise the cost of living, with particular regard to housing costs, before we try to address the situation through social security. Members from across the parties have said so for many years. We want people to claim the social security that they are entitled to. The Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 says that we should encourage people to do so because that is the right thing to do. As we move forward we should be careful about how we talk about social security, so that we do not unwind any of the good work that has been done on reducing the stigma around making claims.

Does Daniel Johnson agree that it is important that the Parliament remembers and recognises that most people on disability benefits get those benefits in a way that is not means tested, because of their disability, whereas a large number of people who get income-related benefits get them while still being in work, through the universal credit system? We need to look at the matter in a holistic way.

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?

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.

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 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.