Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will you take an intervention?

The committee has spent a long time debating the licensing scheme for grouse moors, and land managers have to bring in important considerations about how they enhance certain species. Amendment 31 is about tidying up an obvious loophole in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024.

What I am bringing forward in amendment 41, about swifts, is a simple measure. It is not about difficult issues of land management, such as land management plans, or decisions that land managers have to make; it is about a brick—one brick—in our homes, that could give nature a home.

I can think of all the issues and tricky debates that have taken up the committee’s time, but this one is obvious. New houses have to be built to high building standards, have good insulation values and be airtight. That is squeezing out those birds, and the result is that they do not have a home. Put in a 30-quid brick—make that mandatory as part of building standards—and we will by and large solve that problem.

I reflect on the issues by saying that of course the debates on the grouse management legislation have been hard, but the idea in amendment 41 is really easy, and I hope that we in this Parliament can get to a consensus on it—if not today then between stages 2 and 3—which, unfortunately and sadly, Westminster has failed to do. It is a very simple thing for those birds.

I am not going to attempt to sum up the discussion, but I will offer just a few points. Clearly, we are in a nature emergency as much as we are in a climate emergency. I recognise that the question of setting nature targets is different from that of setting climate targets, but I feel that there is a lot that we can learn from the existing climate change frameworks and the legislation that we have in place, including what has worked well and what has not worked so well in delivering action on the back of stretching targets.

What we have learned from the climate debate is that there is an absolute need to engage with stakeholders and the public on action. The science of climate change is irrefutable, and I think that the science on the nature emergency should be irrefutable, too. If good science shows that species and habitats are in decline and that we need to invest in recovery, that information is what should be used to set the targets. However, I now understand that Sarah Boyack wants to bring a citizens assembly to the table to look at how we would interpret nature targets, take action on them and get consensus on what we might call the “how” of nature restoration. That will be important, as will the timing, and the idea perhaps needs a bit more reflection between stages 2 and 3.

When I moved an amendment to the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 to require there to be a citizens assembly, the Government said at the time, “Oh no, it’s okay. We’ll just have a general requirement for consultation.” That is very similar to what the cabinet secretary has said today. At the time, though, we did not feel that that was enough, and the Parliament agreed to an amendment that required such an assembly to be set up. The amendment and what has come out of it have been beneficial.

I do not think that support for Sarah Boyack’s amendment 15 precludes support for what Alasdair Allan is trying to achieve with amendment 113. I feel that it is very important that we have consultation, as well as a wider assembly.

Tim Eagle has tried to emphasise the importance of land managers, and that is part of it, but I feel that what Alasdair Allan has suggested in amendment 39 makes sense. Of course, we will want to listen to land managers who are investing in natural capital. There are estates near to where I live that are reducing herbivore numbers, both deer and livestock, and they are doing so, because it is a business decision. We should always—always—listen to business. That is very important.

As for other areas of the framework, we have discussed what catch-up plans could look like. Various amendments have been lodged on that issue, and I think that it would be better if the Government were open to discussing the possible options for such plans ahead of stage 3 with the members who have lodged those amendments. However, if the advice is that we should vote on the issue today, that is, clearly, where we will end up.

On the setting of targets, I note that amendments changing “may” to “must” are well used in this Parliament. I will be pressing amendment 18, because I feel that there is a need not just to set one target, or at least one target, but to move forward comprehensively on the nature emergency. It is important that we give the bill real strength of purpose, and that we underline that, so I will press amendment 18.

It is a big change.

You used quite unemotional language there, but if anybody sits back and thinks about what that would actually mean for people, nature and the entire global community, they will realise that it is a vast impact.

It is interesting that the CCC has moved away from a tightly constrained discussion about 2°C and 1.5°C and towards starting to think about tipping points. I guess that your advice is that policy makers should start thinking about the world that we would live in post a tipping point such as the collapse of the north Atlantic conveyor and a completely fundamental shift in our climate, which would effectively be unprecedented.

I can see that you are trying to continue to keep us motivated so that we do not catastrophise and ask, “What is the point because we cannot make any progress?” The change is coming anyway as we edge towards 1.5°C and beyond.

As policy makers, how should we be looking at, for example, flood defences and investment in Scottish Water over the next 10, 20 or 30 years? What scenario should we be preparing for at this point? Is it about saying that we think that the change will be about 1.6°C or 1.7°C and therefore we should be upgrading our flood mitigation measures along that line, or should we be looking at potentially far greater increases? How do you pitch that? There is an immediate investment programme—I think that the one for Scottish Water will be for the next five years—but how should policy makers and investors look at the longer-term investment in infrastructure, bearing in mind what might come? It would be irresponsible not to consider that outcome.

I want to stay on flooding and on the investment issue. We have had evidence from Audit Scotland that the costs of the major flood management schemes—the concrete schemes, I guess you could call them—have trebled over the past decade. Bearing in mind what you said earlier about the potential impacts, in particular if we start looking at going beyond an increase of 2°C, is that balance right at the moment? Is there a need to think again about preventative measures, nature-based solutions and catchment management?

At the moment, it feels as though a blend of solutions emerges. We try not to build on the carses and the meadows if we can, although housing developments still happen. There is a nod to nature-based solutions within catchment management, but it never feels as though they become a major part of our approach to flood mitigation. Given the spiralling costs, what do the future options look like?

Is it a concern that the baseline keeps shifting, though? For example, the flood defence scheme that was built in Brechin was originally designed to deal with a one-in-50-years event. Now the figure has changed to a one-in-20-years event. Is there not an issue there with the assessment of risk changing and that what we would design for a relatively commonplace event is now being blown out of the water, quite literally?

I am content that the instrument would align us with some of the international conventions on mercury, which are about protecting human health and the environment. However, I would like the UK Government to go further and align with the European Union, particularly on areas such as the use of mercury, amalgam in dentistry and sodium lights, and a range of other areas. It would be useful to get the Scottish Government’s view on whether it wants to work towards alignment with the EU in relation to mercury-added products. If so, I would like to know how it is working on a four-nations basis with ministers from across the UK to achieve that, and by when.

The goal of the Paris agreement is to keep well below 2°C, and even then there will be a significant global impact. Quite frankly, I am horrified at what you are saying about 3°C, and even the prospect of 4°C. It is easy for these numbers to slip off the tongue, but can you say in a nutshell what 4°C would mean globally?