Chamber and committees

I thank all members who have lodged amendments in the group.

I will support amendment 110, in the name of Colin Smyth, and I urge other committee members to do the same, because I think that it would clarify the legislation.

I will not support amendment 131, which is in the name of Liam Kerr, because it would undermine the clarity of the offence.

I also cannot support amendments 58 to 62, which are in the name of Edward Mountain and seek to create an exception for rabbits.

I am concerned that amendment 63 would create a loophole for people who claim that they were not intentionally searching for animals.

Amendments 64 to 68 seek to exclude weasels, stoats, mink, polecats and ferrets from the definition of wild mammals and thus from the scope of the bill. I fear that that would leave those animals without any protection against being chased and killed by dogs.

I have some reservations regarding amendments 157, 160, 172 and 173, in the name of Jim Fairlie, which require the licensing authority to specify the minimum number of guns required.

Although that may well increase the likelihood of a clean shot of a wild mammal, I am concerned that it could also increase the risk to humans and other animals, and I would not want to set a precedent for legislation to mandate a minimum number of guns in any context.

I support all of Colin Smyth’s amendments in this group and urge all members to do the same.

Amendments 111, 119 and 127 require a person to demonstrate that a method is appropriate and is the most humane, while amendments 112, 144, 145 and 147 require the activity in the exception not to take place during the breeding season, which I support as a basic animal welfare and conservation measure. I cannot support amendment 35, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, as I feel that it weakens the language in the bill.

It is important that we are clear that there is a difference between wildlife control and the issue in the bill, which is hunting with dogs. I object to animals being chased and killed by dogs. There are other ways to control animals. I draw the member’s attention to that point and have no further remarks to make about the group of amendments.

It is not good enough for the Government to say that we do not have the power, the wealth or the skills. We have all those things. The only thing that we do not have is a Government that has the socialist ambition to redistribute wealth and power. That is why we need a workers’ economy, which only Labour in Government can deliver—

I am pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on COP27 outcomes for Labour, because climate change is an issue that I am passionate about tackling. As poverty is, climate change is an issue of inequality and injustice that hits working-class people hardest and is caused by political choices that have benefited the super-rich.

Closing the debate gives me the opportunity to summarise and reiterate Scottish Labour’s position. However, before I do so I would like to spend some time commenting on the Scottish Government’s motion and the amendment that was lodged by the Conservative Party. Although I have to say that I think that it is a stretch too far to claim—as Gillian Martin seemed to claim—that there would have been no outcomes from COP27 had Scotland’s First Minister not been there, there is much in the Government motion that Labour will support.

It is fair to say that establishing the loss and damage fund is an important step forward in tackling climate change and challenging its injustices. My colleague Foysol Choudhury highlighted the global inequality that we see in how those whose economies have benefited most from fossil fuels have experienced relatively little impact in comparison with those whose resources have been exploited not just in the recent past but throughout the long history of colonialism. We see time and again——as my colleague Katy Clark highlighted—that those who are most acutely affected by the climate emergency have contributed the least to climate change, so it is right that we tackle that injustice and seek to address it through the loss and damage fund.

Labour supports the sentiment in the Government’s motion on the need for

“a phasedown of unabated coal-use”

and

“other fossil fuels”,

as well as on the need

“to ensure that human rights ... are fully respected”—

Can I get the time back, Presiding Officer?

I am afraid that I am unable to take the intervention. I am sorry.

Labour also supports the ambition that is highlighted in the motion of

“protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030”.

However, targets are not enough to tackle the climate and nature emergencies. As the Labour amendment highlights, we need to see “action and delivery”.

We will not support the Tory amendment, because it seeks to remove from the motion crucial lines on the transition away from fossil fuels. That is not to say, however, that we do not support the amendment’s sentiment—which is also in the Scottish Government’s motion—on protecting

“human rights across the world”.

I was pleased to see that in the Conservative Party’s amendment.

We heard from Liam Kerr that the Conservatives want a just transition, as we all do. However, whenever I hear Conservative members speak about a just transition, I have the same question: a just transition for whom? Will it be for ordinary workers and householders, through a green industrial strategy that invests in public services, or are they talking about a just transition for private corporations and oil multinationals that are seeking to protect their profits?

I am afraid that I do not have time in hand.

As I said, we support the element of the Conservative amendment that refers to protecting

“human rights across the world”,

and we also support elements of Tory members’ contributions to the debate. I am thinking, for example, of Graham Simpson’s comments on lower bus fares for all and on dualling of train tracks. I think that I also heard him propose—I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—provision of free ferry travel to under-22s who live on the islands. Labour supports those kinds of investments in our communities and public services and would like to see more of them. However, I would be interested to see whether Graham Simpson’s colleagues in Westminster support such proposals.

In my final minute, I turn to Labour’s amendment. We have decided to support the Government’s motion and to add our amendment at the end. I hope that the Government will be able to support our amendment, because it is important that we have on the record an acknowledgement that we in Scotland are not currently meeting our own annual targets to cut emissions, despite the fact that we are well placed to do so.

If we had a socialist green new deal that used every lever to redistribute wealth through job creation in a suite of new public services, we could drastically reduce emissions in Scotland. A public energy company that would generate renewable energy would provide lower costs for consumers and sectoral collective bargaining for workers. Likewise, council-run bus companies would lower the cost to consumers and improve workers’ rights for the workers involved.

We have often heard from the Government that those kinds of policies are not possible because the budget is fixed, but we heard that argument crumble—

The UK’s major energy distributors made £15.8 billion in profits last year, despite rising energy bills putting more consumers at risk of fuel poverty. Unite the union is calling on Ofgem to reopen its price review and set a clear cap on distributors’ profits. Will the cabinet secretary join Unite in urging Ofgem to act now to end that rampant profiteering?