Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to PE2028. It is on an issue that I have been aware of for a number of years. Having talked to people who are in the asylum system about the daily pressures that they face, the poverty that they have to endure, the lack of opportunity and the constriction of their everyday lives, I feel that such provision is the minimum that we can do to support them.

The committee will be aware that the amount of money that asylum seekers have to live on is very low—I think that it is around £5 a day, and if they are living in hotel accommodation it is around £1 a day. I cannot imagine how hard it would be to live on that amount of money. It feels to me as though it is an absolute impossibility.

The other side of the matter is that I have seen just how transformative the under-22s concessionary travel has been for young people—how it has opened up opportunities, how it has helped people to build relationships, to save money, to access jobs and employment, and just to go about their everyday lives and to have that kind of freedom.

I know that people who are in the asylum system do not have a lot of those freedoms as a right, but they are basic freedoms—just to get about and to participate in society, to see their friends, colleagues and others and to engage in the community. Their situation is hugely restricted, so just having free bus travel would make a massive difference.

The evaluations that the convener mentioned of the very limited pilots in Aberdeen and Wales—we are still waiting to hear about the pilot in Glasgow—will show the value of the policy. It feels to me that it would be a natural extension to the Government’s existing concessionary travel schemes—for over-60s, under-22s and people with a disability—to include this category of people.

I have to say that I am really at a loss as to why the provision has not already been introduced. The information that the committee has received in the SPICe briefing is quite clear that such schemes are not included in the category of benefits for which people with no recourse to public funds are ineligible, so that really begs the question whether there is another reason. Is there another legal interpretation that the Government has heard that is making it cautious? Are there complexities with extending the existing card-based concessionary travel scheme to people who are in the asylum system? Are there other issues about identification or other issues around budget? I genuinely do not know. I do not think we have had a clear answer from recent transport ministers. We have had four transport ministers in the past two years, so there is a question there, as well.

I am concerned that the issue is falling between different ministerial responsibilities. I am concerned that we do not have from the Government a clear view on the reason why the provision cannot be introduced, but I think that the case for it remains. It would be a great service for the committee to get under the bonnet of the issue to understand why it has not been introduced. On the face of it, such provision would be in line with the environment that the Scottish Government is trying to create, which is a welcoming environment for people in the asylum system as their claims are being processed. I do not understand why the scheme has not been extended.

At the end of the day we are talking about small numbers of people—fewer than 6,000—so, again, I do not understand, if there is not a budget reason, why the support has not been extended already.

We are seeing attacks from the Tories and Labour on the action that is necessary to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. Labour attacks action on the nature crisis on the same day as Rishi Sunak cancels action on the climate. Those are two sides of the same political coin; such politicians think only of the next election rather than the next generation.

Nature deserves to be restored for its own sake, but woodlands, peatlands and wetlands can also help us to lock up the climate emissions that are genuinely unavoidable.

The global biodiversity framework that was agreed at the 15th conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity—COP15—recognised the urgent need to scale up nature restoration and the sheer scale of the investment that is required. To close the global biodiversity finance gap, hundreds of billions of dollars are required every year. No country can deliver that through public funding alone, which is why the global framework commits countries to

“Substantially and progressively”

increase the finance that is available

“from all sources”

to restore nature.

Scotland has already begun to ramp up public funding. I am proud that, since the Greens entered government, more than £20 million has already been allocated to projects across the country—from the River Tweed to the Cairngorms—through the nature restoration fund, which is putting species and habitats on the path to recovery.

I do not have time in hand.

Those public funds alone will not be enough to deliver the scale of change that is needed. That change certainly cannot be delivered within the constraints of a devolved Government with limited borrowing powers but, even if we had all the powers in this Parliament, the finance gap would remain huge and unbridgeable.

The fact is that the carbon and nature market already exists and is operating in Scotland. Responsible Governments must step in early to ensure that the market develops in a way that is truly ethical and benefits nature, the climate and communities.

I agree with colleagues that communities need to lead that change. I highlight Fife Coast and Countryside Trust’s excellent work in setting up nature finance Fife, which will channel public, philanthropic and private finance into nature projects across Fife. That is nature investment from the bottom up. It is driven by communities and not-for-profit organisations working with academics, landowners, councils, regulators and those with finance expertise. Its first investment project, on the Dreel burn in Fife, will involve restoration at a landscape scale.

The trust is also working on a community benefit standard as part of the newly formed nature finance certification alliance. That project aims to create a standard that demonstrates the wider benefits of nature restoration for all communities.

Although important work is being done with our communities, I note the valid concerns that have been raised by Community Land Scotland and others about the effect that the emerging market could have on land prices. Given that Scotland has one of the highest concentrations of land ownership in the developed world, that cannot be overlooked. The problem has already been recognised, including through changes to the woodland carbon code that, according to the Scottish Land Commission, had a cooling effect on demand for land for planting in 2022.

The commission has advised that

“There is nothing inherently contradictory in these ambitions if the tensions are addressed by deliberately shaping the markets and policies that drive delivery.”

The commission has made detailed recommendations to ensure that the right balance is struck across Government, and I look forward to the Parliament receiving the Scottish Government’s collective response on that.

The forthcoming agriculture and land reform bills will also help to redirect more public funds and put the public interest at the heart of landowners’ responsibilities. However, we need to take action at all levels if we are to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. All Governments will need to act with integrity, particularly on the issue of natural capital investment.

Is enough innovation taking place? With regard to the marine environment, I note that CES is doing work on whether blue carbon is an acceptable route for bringing in private investment. There is also a need for innovation on marine energy technologies. Are you comfortable that CES is pushing into such spaces and trying to make sense of things and think of appropriate ways forward, or is there more to do in that respect?

I want to turn to Crown Estate Scotland and its role in addressing climate change. We are developing a new climate change plan at the moment. As a result, we will need innovation and new policies. What is CES’s role in that? Is it feeding into the plan? What are the opportunities in CES’s role that will help us to take the action that will meet the ambitions that are set out in law?

The minister will have noted that, on Sunday, Wales began its national roll-out of a 20 miles per hour speed limit, with the default speed limit going from 30mph to 20mph. The Welsh councils have been doing a lot of work to prepare for that. I just want to ask about the commitment in the Bute house agreement for all appropriate roads in Scotland to switch to 20mph limits by 2025. What progress are councils in Scotland making on the roll-out of 20mph limits to save lives and make our communities safer and friendlier places to live?

I think all my questions about franchising and municipalisation have been answered, but I have a final question if that is okay.

We now have the strategic framework and delivery plan in relation to the other crisis—the biodiversity and nature crisis. Do you see key opportunities there? I highlight aquaculture in particular, because we still see widespread community concern about its growth in Scotland. There is a view that it is not being appropriately regulated, and there are criticisms of CES and others in that regard. Given that challenge, and other challenges and opportunities, could and should CES be doing more to deliver our biodiversity strategy?

Yes—I am sorry about that.

That was a helpful piece of information, convener. I am content to agree with the Scottish Government’s recommendation.

However, I was a bit alarmed by the letter that we received from the cabinet secretary, particularly the paragraph about the national air pollution control programme legislation, which is not included in this measure to retain EU law. The cabinet secretary says:

“this is the last opportunity to seek preservation of the air quality provisions through a UK SI. By choosing to omit these air quality provisions ... the UK Government is creating unnecessary uncertainty while it develops replacement ... proposals.”

She also says:

“Although the provisions fall within devolved competence in relation to air quality, it would not be possible to make a preservation SSI in relation to these provisions as they confer functions on the UK Secretary of State – and not Scottish Ministers”.

I am really concerned about this, because we are reaching a cliff edge on 31 October. The secretary of state could retain important EU laws that protect human health and our environment, yet it looks like those laws will not be retained. The UK Government and, indeed, the Scottish Government have the opportunity to work together on a replacement framework that would help protect human health and the environment, but there is no sign of that, so those important laws will go. It is not just parliamentarians who are raising those concerns—Environmental Standards Scotland and non-governmental organisations have raised them, too.

I am really concerned about that cliff edge. As we know, air pollution does not respect boundaries; it crosses them. Having a UK framework is important, as it is across Europe. Notwithstanding the fact that the committee has written to the UK and Scottish Governments, I am really concerned that this law looks like it is set to go on 31 October. We have, at this point, no understanding about what will be brought in to protect our human health and environment in the interim, however long that might be.