Seòmar agus comataidhean

Let me make some progress; I have already taken one intervention from the member.

The announcement by the Prime Minister will have serious ramifications for Scotland’s next climate change plan. The cabinet secretary is right to seek urgent, updated advice from the UK Climate Change Committee—I am sure that that advice will be treated with respect, unlike the disgraceful way that senior UK Government ministers misinterpreted and then rubbished their own advisers’ work in public over the past week.

We need that leadership and consistency from a next Westminster Government that works with the devolved Administrations to keep ambition high while supporting everybody through the transition, with all the challenges and opportunities that come with it. A genuine four-nations approach is needed to deliver what the cabinet secretary talked about at the beginning of the debate: a collective mission, with all Administrations coming together to work with the UK Climate Change Committee to find a pathway to real zero. The solutions are there—this is not rocket science—but only a lack of political will can hold us back.

This year’s climate week marks a tipping point in the climate emergency, because 2023 is the year when the climate emergency arrived on the doorstep of so many communities across the world and when fire and flood have taken the lives and livelihoods of so many people. It has been impossible to ignore. This is the first year when I have looked at my own children and felt fearful for what the decades ahead will be like for them to actually live through.

We must also not forget the impact that climate change is having on the natural world. Increasing temperatures, extreme weather and invasive species are threatening ecosystems with collapse. This year has been one in which videos of climate protesters slowing cars have been watched alongside videos of cars being swept away by flash floods. We are at a tipping point in public consciousness, but it is also a dangerous time—a time when those who feel powerless or disbelieving can turn to dangerous conspiracies and denialism about climate and even about democracy itself.

We need honest leadership about the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, free from the agendas of vested interests who wish to slow or reverse change. The reason why many people felt disillusioned by the Prime Minister’s climate climbdown last week was because there was not a shred of honest leadership in that announcement. Standing at a plinth that read

“Long-term Decisions for a Brighter Future”,

he announced short-term decisions that will destroy the future. He described the need for change, and for a second I almost felt quite hopeful, but then he cancelled or delayed the programmes that are delivering the change that is necessary—the very policies that he was elected to deliver. Policies that had been extensively consulted on for years were cancelled or delayed. He then, incredibly, scrapped a range of policies, from compulsory car sharing to meat taxes, that do not even exist. It was a level of doublethink that has not been seen since “1984”.

The Government’s motion today rightly acknowledges that Scotland is halfway towards net zero, but the hardest part is still to come. Achieving net zero will need a level of political ambition, collaboration and leadership across the UK that we have not yet seen. There are genuine challenges, particularly as Governments look to scale up delivery in areas such as EV charging, peatland restoration and heat in buildings. Supply chains and finance need to be built up quickly.

The push of strong regulation needs to be matched with the pull of new markets. Opposition members are right to ask searching questions of ministers and the Government, but the quickest way to deter investment is to send the signal that a target, however stretching, can be summarily ditched.

Last week, Ford called for “ambition, commitment and consistency” from Government. Rishi Sunak did exactly the opposite. He lowered ambition, showed that his Government has no commitment, and created inconsistency and uncertainty. His announcement was bad for the planet and for the economic growth of key sectors that are critical for the transition to real zero.

It was not just the car industry. Vattenfall, the energy company, said that the announcement was a backwards step and that it damages supply chains at a time when skills for developing green heat need to be ramped up massively.

The Prime Minister’s comments on energy concerned me the most. Telling people that energy efficiency is an expensive luxury that they cannot afford is clearly absurd. The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use.

It should be, and it is. The heat in buildings strategy will lay out how we can bring together energy efficiency with heat decarbonisation. However, it will take time to build up a supply chain that was decimated by the policies of the Tory Government 10 years ago. When David Cameron talked about cutting the “green crap”, he stripped out the investment from that industry. People moved out of it completely and the supply chain was shut down. It is this Government that is now trying to build it back up to the point at which budgets can be spent and real change can start to happen.

Perhaps Rishi Sunak was thinking about the costs to private landlords of improving the efficiency of properties that they own but do not pay energy bills on. Housing is a human right and locking people into energy-inefficient, cold and unhealthy housing is a violation of those rights. His comments about the cost of heat pumps were alarmist. Householders will see cheaper costs as the supply chain develops, but many houses are ready for heat pumps today and Scottish Government grants are the most generous in the UK.

Does Alex Rowley agree that it is important that councils, including Fife Council, use the new powers that are coming in relation to municipal ownership of bus companies and franchising in order to bring public transport into public ownership and under public control, and that the Government’s recently announced community bus fund provides a mechanism for councils to develop that vision and move towards that goal?

To go back to Edward Mountain’s point about the climate change plan, we are less than three months away from Christmas. Does he really expect the UK Climate Change Committee to provide its in-depth analysis for the Scottish Government to work with in order to come up with a plan by December? Does he recognise the impossibility of that and the difficulty that we will have in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to scrutinise that as well as the UK Climate Change Committee’s assessment of the Prime Minister’s announcement last week?

I thank our witnesses for their evidence—it has been useful to get an updated picture for this year. I have a couple of questions. I want to go back to Liam Sinclair’s point on what a strategic transformative approach to embedding culture would look like. I saw a lot of colleagues round the table nodding their heads when Liam was talking, and others have explained what that might look like in terms of services. I was particularly struck by some of the work that Artlink is doing with links to education, mental health and other services.

Can you point to an area in the UK where councils, devolved Administrations and other bodies have taken that leap and said, “Yes, we will do the full Christie—we will tackle preventative spend and invest in culture for all the transformation that we know that it can achieve”? If there is an example that you could point to, that would be useful.

I will rattle on with my second question, which is on other sources of funding. We have had evidence from the Music Venue Trust about not just cultural tax relief, which we have mentioned, but relief for small venues and a potential for a levy on stadium and arena shows. I am struck by the fact that culture makes a lot of money and there is a lot of wealth involved, but I would make a distinction between big culture and the cultural organisations and practices that you are involved with. How can we transfer wealth from big culture to community culture?

Linked to that, do you have any thoughts on a transient visitor levy and other sources of income that could come into the sector during these difficult times? I am struck by that figure of 1 per cent or £18.5 million. That could come from Government, but it could come from a variety of other sources as well.

The Prime Minister’s climbdown on climate shows that he is a politician who is interested only in the next election, rather than in the next generation. What impact will his announcement have on Scotland’s plans to reach net zero by 2045?

We have all paid the price of Liz Truss’s extremist economic agenda and now we will all pay the price of Sunak’s extremist anti-climate agenda. Businesses have invested and households have begun to prepare, but we have all been let down. The Prime Minister has, incredibly, managed to unite the Ford motor company and Greenpeace in condemnation of his climate climbdown. Will the cabinet secretary now request urgent advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, ahead of the drafting of Scotland’s next climate change plan, so that we can deliver the policies with, in the words of Ford, the “ambition, commitment and consistency” that we all need?

I thank Jackie Dunbar for securing the debate.

Having had the privilege of living on the banks of the River Teith for 15 years, I learned very quickly that rivers help to change our whole perception of the natural world and the environment around us. We become far more aware of the changing seasons, of storm surges and droughts, and of their impacts on the river. We get to know the wonderful creatures that live in and around the river, too, so it is an amazing experience.

I enjoyed hearing from Evelyn Tweed about how the beavers that have been reintroduced at Argaty are now thriving. I have been proud to support the Bowsers, over many years, in getting their licence, and I congratulate the minister for finally getting that over the line. That has been a success, and there is no conflict with surrounding landowners. We are now left with the sight of the beavers at the ponds and the amazing benefits that they bring to the natural environment. That is a great success.

In recent years, we have all become increasingly aware of our rivers, as there is a growing movement of wild swimmers, swimming in our lochs, rivers and seas. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of meeting a group of wild swimmers from Fife. When the group held a wild swim in the River Tay earlier this year, unfortunately, many of the people who were swimming became ill, which was potentially due to a sewage spill from a combined sewage outflow at Stanley. Their main ask of Scottish Water is to provide monitoring and accessible public information, which Mercedes Villalba spoke about, so that they know when there is an increased risk of pollution.

At present, less than 4 per cent of the combined sewer overflows in Scotland are monitored and reported. I know from the Marine Conservation Society that only 11 out of the 496 outflow sites in my region are monitored, with more than 1,300 spillages recorded in 2022.

The water quality in a number of the freshwater habitats in Scotland is deteriorating because of sewage outflows and phosphorus from agricultural run-off or new developments. Monitoring is therefore important if we are to find out what is going on, but we also need to get at the root cause of the problem and invest in solutions. One effective way of doing that is to expand the network of designated bathing water sites to encourage investment between SEPA and Scottish Water. Bathing water designations are not just for coastal beaches; some freshwater sites have been designated, but the numbers in Scotland are still quite low.

The joint work between SEPA, Scottish Water and other stakeholders to monitor and improve water quality has resulted in some pretty dramatic improvements in many designated areas. For those that fall short of the required standard, it also drives targeted investment. However, the guidelines for designating sites in Scotland require that each site receives at least 150 daily visitors, and that deters applications. According to SEPA, that is one reason why only six bathing water applications were received in the past five years in Scotland. England has no threshold for visitors, so the application process is clearly easier.

I want to briefly highlight the Leven programme, which brings together landowners, restoration specialists, the local community and others to restore the River Leven in Fife for the benefit of local people and wildlife. Historically, the Leven played an important role in powering industry. Through the Leven programme, there are plans to restore habitats by planting river woodlands along and within the river, modifying dams to make it easier for fish to migrate, creating ponded areas for wildlife, and, critically, improving public access. All that work connects with the programme to reopen the Levenmouth rail route. It is a great example of joined-up thinking and investment.

I hope that all rivers in Scotland will, in time, have the opportunity for restoration that the Leven has been given. Once again, I thank Jackie Dunbar for giving me the chance to highlight a few of the issues that are at stake here.

That is an excellent point. The way in which the concessionary travel scheme has been established is that there is an evidence test for extensions of the scheme, with certain conditions that have to be met and certain qualities of evidence that need to be submitted. That would get into the guts of the reasons why why the scheme has not been extended up to now.

The Government is currently engaged in a fair fares review that is looking at concessionary travel and fares across all public transport. I understand from the transport minister, who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Environment and Transport Committee this week, that that will be concluding next year.

Clearly, there are demands for the extension of concessionary travel—for example from people in island communities and from people who need companions to join them if they have a sight issue—but it would be useful to understand the context of how Government is looking at the extension of concessionary travel. In particular, zeroing in on why it has taken so long for the Government to come to a considered view and how this fits with a fair fares review would be a good place to go in terms of questioning and scrutiny.