Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an important point, and it connects to an important challenge that the Parliament will face, which is the fact that disability benefits are devolved but universal credit is reserved. We need to think very seriously about calling for universal credit to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament in a sensible timeframe, because, although disability benefits are not means tested, the issues are connected.

We should also seek more powers in relation to migration, and there has been strong consensus on that in the past. This would not be a panacea, but policy work was done in 2020 through “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper”. Different border controls would not be required. There is plenty of precedent for such a policy in Australia and Canada, and it could be deliverable with a Scottish tax code. We have done the hard policy making, and we could easily progress to a better constitutional position on that.

As I said, the more that we can do to provide support through childcare funding and housing security, and the more that we can do to establish a stronger position of security for our people, the more likely we will be to have a positive effect on the birth rate, which is also important in this regard.

To me, the arguments that the Scottish Government has made in its motion and more generally for more borrowing powers are unquestionable. No matter which political party was in power in the Scottish Government, it would want more borrowing powers. In order to build capacity in our economy and to undertake public sector reform, the Scottish Government needs to have more capital funding available. In my view, that is an undeniable truth.

I will say briefly what that would mean for the people I represent. The cabinet secretary talked about the challenges relating to population decline and demographic change, but there is a bit of a different scenario in Edinburgh and the rest of the Lothians, where there have been huge population increases. People are moving here because it is so attractive, and massive economic growth and innovation are taking place. We have to support Edinburgh’s economy and infrastructure, which are critical to the wider Scottish economy. I represent people in north Edinburgh, which has rich parts and poorer parts, and there would be possibilities resulting from the Granton waterfront development. Thankfully, the cabinet secretary has given so much of her time and so much consideration to the development in recent years, and it was great to be in north Edinburgh with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice yesterday. In my view, what the Granton waterfront development could do for the people of north Edinburgh in addressing some of Edinburgh’s wider challenges would be as transformational as what the Dundee waterfront redevelopment has done for Dundee. It is undeniable that further capital funding from the UK budget, and what we could do with capital borrowing powers in places such as north Edinburgh, would make an important difference.

Will Craig Hoy give way on that point?

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?

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.

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?

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.