���˿���

Finally, how large a part can nature-based solutions play in our climate adaptation approach?

I want to stick with the theme of the electrification of heavy goods vehicles, because I was quite struck by the evidence that was provided by the CCC on that area. The CCC specifically stated that, by 2030, it expects 6 per cent of our HGVs to be battery electric. By 2045, the committee expects, if I am reading its publication correctly, 84 per cent of HGVs to be battery electric.

I am not going to get into whether it will be hydrogen or battery electric. I suspect that it will be more battery electric than hydrogen; that is just where I think the technology is.

I find the timescale for those figures to be completely unachievable, which I think is due to two factors. One is that, as it stands at the moment, we do not have a grid infrastructure to build out sufficiently on electric car charging facilities. There are constraints across the grid; we cannot get new charging points put in because there is no capacity, so I do not think that it will be delivered. That is one reason that will constrain us.

The second reason is that it will involve a huge amount of capital investment for companies to turn over their vehicles in that period of time. If we look at what happened with electric cars, for early adopters, they were very expensive—and they remain expensive, although the CCC is saying that price parity will be achieved between 2026 and 2028.

It is fine in theory, but, in practice, I do not think that it will be delivered, and if it is not delivered, what is the alternative?

There is no doubt that aspects of the process are far from ideal. If you were to design it, you would not design it in the way that it has been done. Some of Mark Ruskell’s comments are perfectly valid and reasonable. Clearly, we always want to reflect on the process, how the issues are handled and how the process will be managed in order to see what we can learn for future parliamentary sessions. However, we cannot get away from the fact that we face a climate and nature emergency and we have a collective responsibility to take action. I could follow Douglas Lumsden and produce a list of what I would describe as flimsy excuses for not supporting the motion, but all that that would do is demonstrate a lack of leadership to deal with one of the biggest global crises that we face.

When I talk about things such as “flimsy excuses”, I refer to, for example, your suggestion that electricity is in some way pinned to the international gas price in the UK, when that is a fact; it is what drives our electricity costs. Your party was in government at Westminster for more than a decade and it could have taken action on that if it had chosen to do so. The reality is that it chose not to. Equally, during that time, the Conservatives supported the need to ensure that we achieved net zero by 2050.

In the UK and Scotland, it is not optional; it is a legislative requirement. We are legally obliged to achieve net zero by 2045 and 2050. As parliamentarians, if we choose to ignore that based on flimsy excuses, we are not doing our job properly. That is why I will vote for the motion, even though I accept that parts of the process are not as effective as they could be. I accept the responsibility that we have to tackle the nature and climate emergencies that we face, not only for this generation but for future generations.

It seems that significant capital investment will be needed over a number of years to achieve those infrastructure changes.

I am also interested in people’s views about how we can decarbonise the process of climate adaptation as part of infrastructure investment. Is there a risk that we might undermine the progress that we are seeking to make through investing in infrastructure to adapt to climate change and address some of the climate challenges that we are facing, and that we will actually end up increasing our carbon output? What must we do to not only adapt but ensure that the adaptation process reduces our carbon output?

Given that industry is our third-biggest emitter of carbon, what is the Scottish Government doing, policy-wise, to incentivise industry to decarbonise its processes and how it uses energy in different forms? I think that five different areas were suggested by the CCC. What are we doing to incentivise industry to ensure that it operates in a more sustainable fashion and that it decarbonises the energy that it uses?

Yes, thank you. I have considered both amendments, which would, if I have read them correctly, effectively end Crown Estate Scotland’s role and functions. However, I am not clear about a couple of issues.

First, I am not entirely sure whether local authorities have the capacity and capability to undertake devolved foreshore responsibilities, given the significant challenges that they face in dealing with planning matters as it stands. There is a capacity and capability issue.

My second point is about aspects of spatial planning. It appears to me that, in order to ensure that the rationale for the approach that is being taken across the country is clearly understood, it makes more sense to take a consistent approach to dealing with spatial planning matters, on the foreshore and beyond, and to do so in a single organisation.

My third point is that I imagine that the challenge of passing that responsibility to local authorities is likely to result in a potential variation in approach, which will make policy at a foreshore level less transparent. How different local authorities take planning decisions on foreshore matters could also raise fairness issues.

Notwithstanding my interpretation that the amendments effectively do away with Crown Estate Scotland, the issue is whether local authorities have capacity and capability in the first place. On spatial planning, they would ultimately lead to the challenge of different organisations dealing with different things in different parts of the country, which could create transparency and fairness issues when it comes to how the process is applied.

No—oh, sorry. Yes.

I am always getting my numbers mixed up, like you, convener.

Amendment 488 agreed to.

Amendments 489 and 490 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 moved—[Mairi Gougeon].

Amendment 508A moved—[Tim Eagle].

Amendments 138, 139 and 168 are consequential to earlier amendments on sites of community significance that I did not move.