Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 12 November 2024
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 546 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament

European Structural and Investment Funds

Meeting date: 26 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

It is my understanding that the allocation of the EU structural and investment funding is done on a multi-annual basis. I am conscious that the funding period that was referred to in the statement has included a Brexit referendum, subsequent negotiations and a worldwide pandemic. Therefore, does the Deputy First Minister think that we need to be mindful of the particular context that was faced during that funding period and how that impacted partners and their projects?

Meeting of the Parliament

Climate Emergency

Meeting date: 26 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

Such is the seriousness of the global climate emergency that it can often be overwhelming and demoralising to think about what to do about it. However, if, collectively, we continue to think global and act local, we can make a meaningful difference, as years past have shown.

I am of the firm view that, together, we can make progress on the issue only if we have a positive discussion about it. Yes, we must be realistic, honest and practical, but we must be positive. As a Parliament, we have indicated on several occasions that we all care about the issue and are committed to tackling it. Given that we share the same objective, we need to think about what we can do to work collectively for the benefit of our constituents.

In this Parliament, we hear evidence from experts all the time. Sometimes, it really sticks with you when you hear someone speak at a committee or in another forum. At the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s meeting on 23 April this year, Chris Stark made his last appearance as chair of the Climate Change Committee. That evidence was extremely compelling, and I would like to repeat a number of the things that he said that day.

One of his key points was this:

“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.”

He also said:

“The transition is good for the climate, good for the economy and good for people living in this country.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 23 April 2024; c 47, 48.]

For me and my constituency, that applies in a number of different ways, every week and every day. Nova Innovation is developing some of the most remarkable tidal technology in the world and, in doing so, is growing as a business, and it was recently announced that Vestas, a world-leading blade maker, has begun the process of securing planning permission for a site at Leith docks in Edinburgh. During this week of wind energy, it is worth noting that that development will create new jobs and will play a huge part in the remarkable contribution that Scotland can make to wind energy, to the benefit of us and people elsewhere.

Low-emission zones are already making a difference. Clean air day last week was important in reminding us as a society that, in Scotland, there have been 1,700 premature deaths due to pollution, which is the leading cause of preventable ill health in Scotland.

Those are all reasons for achieving net zero and tackling the climate emergency. I go back to the words of Chris Stark, who said:

“I am increasingly of the view that, if we are going to get to net zero by 2045, we probably will not do so by making the arguments solely on a climate basis. For example, it is jobs in Falkirk that should drive the investments to decarbonise Grangemouth, and the fact that that also helps the climate should be a secondary reinforcing concern. Similarly, the fact that we are making homes warmer and reducing energy bills is the reason why we want to make the investment in buildings, and the fact that it helps the climate is a reinforcing aspect.

I am happy for net zero to step into that reinforcing secondary role. We still have to get to net zero—it is very important that we do that—but we have been through quite an odd period, frankly, where the primary reason for a lot of what was being done was net zero alone, and that is a strategy that probably does not have that much longer to run.”—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 23 April 2024; c 35.]

The benefits of net zero are widespread, so I am very pleased that the Government remains committed to achieving net zero by 2045 and all the benefits that it will bring.

16:31  

Meeting of the Parliament

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 25 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

Will the member give way?

Meeting of the Parliament

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 25 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

Does Edward Mountain agree that the overarching point that we heard in evidence, particularly at stage 1 of the bill, was that if we can improve the quality of the recyclate and bring in investment, that will benefit the circular economy and the reuse of materials? Rather than focusing on the colour of bins or the colour of bin lids, depending on what happens with the amendments, we need collectively to improve understanding in communities across Scotland about what is recyclable and improve the recyclate in order to bring in investment and change.

Meeting of the Parliament

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 25 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

At stage 2, we agreed my amendment that prioritised adding key sectors and systems identified in the development of the circular economy strategy to a list of examples of provision that may be made in regulations for circular economy targets. My amendment 66, which we discussed earlier this afternoon in group 2—I am grateful to members for supporting it—sets out criteria for identifying those priority sectors for the strategy, as colleagues will recall. Amendment 68 is a consequential amendment that makes it clear that the same criteria apply to identifying the sectors and systems in the targets regulations as apply to identifying them for the purpose of the circular economy strategy.

For clarity and completeness, I ask members to support amendment 68.

Meeting of the Parliament

Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 25 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

During the stage 1 process, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee heard significant evidence about particular sectors of our economy and waste-producing aspects of our society that will need to be considered and which need to change in order for a more circular economy to be realised, as well as individuals and communities taking action.

At stage 2, I raised the issue of including in the bill priority sectors—specifically, construction, food waste and household waste. As other members have noted, construction accounts for around half of Scotland’s waste, so it is an important sector for us to focus on. I am grateful for the collaboration with the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Institute of Building in Scotland in considering those issues.

However, having listened carefully to the feedback from the minister at stage 2, I appreciate the Scottish Government’s argument that highlighting specific sectors in the bill might limit future flexibility. I have also been assured that, in developing and delivering its strategy, the Scottish Government is committed to making sure that those key sectors are addressed. Therefore, I do not think that Maurice Golden’s amendment 98 is appropriate, in the same way that my amendment at stage 2 was not appropriate—there needs to be flexibility in the strategy to address all the main sectors.

I am also concerned that the sectors that are named in amendment 98 are not defined, as I sought to define them or to reference other legislation in my amendment at stage 2. The lack of definitions could create difficulties.

I am grateful to the minister for engaging constructively on those points and on the issue of the major sectors at stage 2 and since, and for working with me to put forward an alternative approach, in amendment 66, of setting out criteria that should be used when identifying priority sectors and systems for the circular economy strategy. Amendment 66 introduces such criteria. In particular, it links priority sectors to climate change targets, to the

“life-cycle carbon emissions of goods, products and materials,”

to maximisation of

“the value of the circular economy”

and to

“wider environmental impact”.

That also takes into account some of the issues raised by Mark Ruskell at stage 2.

Amendment 66 would strengthen and future-proof the strategy in its development and delivery, and I urge members to support it.

Meeting of the Parliament

Housing Emergency

Meeting date: 20 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

I fully appreciate that the Scottish Government’s capital budget has been cut by around 9 per cent, and I note that, this financial year, the Scottish Government has allocated around £600 million of its resources to increasing the provision of affordable housing, but will the minister provide an update on what specific actions the Scottish Government is engaged in to address Edinburgh’s very serious housing emergency, especially given the acute impact that significant population growth is having on the availability of social housing in my constituency and the demand that exists for what is available across the city?

Meeting of the Parliament

Public Service Investment

Meeting date: 13 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

I agree with everything that Mr Greer has said. Would he like me to help to organise a visit to the fairly new film studio in Leith to see more of those excellent achievements?

Meeting of the Parliament

Public Service Investment

Meeting date: 13 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

Pam Duncan-Glancy has articulated some of the problems that we collectively face as a society, but I just do not understand how the £18 billion-worth of public sector cuts that are being proposed by her party are going to help in any of those areas in any way.

Meeting of the Parliament

Public Service Investment

Meeting date: 13 June 2024

Ben Macpherson

In this 25th year of devolution, there is an opportunity to reflect together on what has been achieved and to consider what we must do to meet the challenges of the 21st century and achieve what we want to in the next 25, 50 or 75 years.

Context matters. Our collective challenges are complex and our problems are difficult. In communities such as the one that I have the privilege of representing, many of those challenges lead back to things that happened in the 1980s.

The first years of devolution, when I was a lad, were a time of plenty, and perhaps more could have been done. Let us not forget that the Labour Party of that time was also guilty of spending money on things that should not have been priorities, such as the £9 billion that was spent on an illegal war in Iraq.

In 2007, things changed in a number of ways. The SNP came to power for the first time, and the financial crisis happened. That should be remembered, because, since that crash happened, there have been self-inflicted harms caused by Westminster Governments: austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss Government, particularly its budget. External factors, such as the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine, have also had an impact. Since the 2010 Government of David Cameron, significant mistakes have caused extreme difficulty and have made Britain, as the Resolution Foundation has said, a poorer country with a very few rich people in it.