| Allan Wilson:
I apologise
in advance that, in the 10 minutes that I have been allocated, it will
not be possible for me to respond to every member's speech. My colleague
Ross Finnie was counting the number of contributors to the debate and was
up in the early 20s when he stopped. I am not sure whether that is a record,
but I am happy to respond to all members in the fullness of time.
I will concentrate
on two themes in my response to the debate. First, as David Davidson and
others have mentioned, today is the third time that the Parliament has
debated sustainable development. It is also the second time that I have
responded to the debate in my capacity as a minister—albeit that on the
previous occasion I was Deputy Minister for Sport and Culture. At that
time, I emphasised the importance of people to the strategy. Fundamentally,
I still believe that sustainable development should be a people-centred
strategy.
I said then
that we must progress the strategy, so the second theme to which I will
refer is the progress that we have made. I was pleased to see that Friends
of the Earth has repeated the report card on sustainable development, which
was referred to by Fiona McLeod today and last February. Unless my memory
fails me, we have received more smiley faces than we received last time,
especially for environmental justice.
Environmental
justice is the type of people-centred focus to which I have referred and
to which the First Minister has attached such importance. Our statement
on sustainable development is both about people and about making progress.
I am sorry that so many speeches from the Conservative and SNP wings of
the chamber missed that fairly central point.
"Meeting the
Needs" is right for today. Our statement
"meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs".
The statement
emphasises the important social justice element of that programme. Without
the social justice element and without bringing together our society's
haves and have nots, we cannot hope to meet the sustainable development
goals that we have set for ourselves.
John Scott,
according to his amendment, wants more indicators except, it appears, for
road traffic stabilisation. However, is more better? The UK has a set of
150 indicators, but they are difficult for non-experts to use. Ross Finnie
and I believe in a people-centred approach. The 150-plus UK indicators
already include Scottish data. That was the point that I sought to make
when I intervened on Fiona McLeod. We are part of the UK and we contribute
to the UK indicators.
Our set of 24
additional indicators builds on that list and focuses on our priorities.
Where we have set targets, we will set further targets if that is appropriate.
The document is an important milestone and we will build on that and add
to the indicators.
A couple of
members made valuable contributions. Robin Harper asked whether an ecological
footprint indicator should be added. I agree. We have already commissioned
work on an ecological footprint for Scotland. That report is due in 18
months. As part of the cities review, we have commissioned work on the
ecological footprint for each of our cities. Again, that is progress towards
our common objectives. Murray Tosh said that there is no indicator on greenfield
land. I agree that an indicator on the use of greenfield land for development
might be a good idea.
I emphasise
that this is our first set of indicators. We will add to it, amend it and
consider it in the light of further discussion. The speeches of Murray
Tosh and Robin Harper add to and inform that debate.
Bruce Crawford's
amendment is interesting, because it clearly supports the Executive's motion
and he said as much in his speech. He supports "Meeting the Needs" and
our indicators, but he obviously wants more work on those indicators. That
is what we have to do and that is what we will do.
We will set
more targets and, as I have said, we will respond to the points that were
raised in the debate. In particular, we will not be outdone on our ambition
for Scotland—a sustainable future for our nation. That is the Executive's
fundamental priority and what the programme is all about. We believe in
sustainable development.
Bruce Crawford:
Does not the minister realise that there are
already 2,000MW-worth of planning permissions being actively discussed
by local authorities and wind farm developers? That will take us way beyond
the 18 per cent target long before 2010. Can the minister set a more ambitious
target for Scotland so that we can realise our potential?
The Presiding
Officer: Before the minister replies, I appeal
to members who have just entered the chamber to do those members who have
been here the courtesy of listening to the minister's reply.
Allan Wilson:
Yes—they will be enlightened.
The Executive
is driving the market in renewable energy promotion throughout the UK.
We are about to consult on the targets. A lot of words have been bandied
about in the chamber today and previously—
Robin Harper:
Does the minister agree that it is a little
too easy for him to state that traffic will increase by 27 per cent by
2020 and then to do something about that figure, which has been pulled
out of the air, rather than addressing the real problem that we have just
now?
Allan Wilson:
Nothing that we have done in developing the
strategy, which I commend to the chamber, has been, or could be, construed
as easy. When we consult as a unicameral chamber, as we must, we do so
seriously and we take on board the views of those who make representations
to us. We will therefore consult on the figure of 30 per cent; more might
be possible. However, as we said in the energy debate, there are technical
and economic issues and there are grid problems. We are ambitious. We will
consult on that target and we will increase and improve on our targets
where necessary.
Iain Smith asked
when strategic environmental assessment would be introduced. I am told
that work is under way to meet the target date of July 2004 for implementation
of the European directive. I say to Iain Smith, and to the chamber, why
should we not do better than that? Why should we not strive to improve
upon that target? I give my commitment to the chamber that we will seek
to do that.
Alex Neil: Will
the minister give way?
Allan Wilson:
No. I will continue with my flow, if Alex
Neil does not mind.
Indicator 1
is a measure of carbon impact. There is an important point about indicators
and targets that is worthy of further dissemination: if the world burns
more carbon, the world value will go up. Our contribution is measured by
indicator 1, which shows that we understand the linkages between the burning
of fossil fuels and climate change. One of the successes of our "do a little—change
a lot" campaign has been the raising of public awareness of that fact.
There is good statistical evidence to support that contention.
I wish to say
something briefly about national waste, which has been referred to. I want
ministers to take powers to set mandatory local authority targets, as part
of a new duty on local authorities to prepare integrated waste management.
[Applause.] Thank you very much. It is not very often that I will be clapped
by Robin Harper and Fiona McLeod. We hope to address that issue in the
forthcoming local government bill. Sylvia Jackson asked pertinent questions
about that matter. We intend to address those issues in the national waste
plan.
Allan Wilson:
Jamie McGrigor raised an issue that is dear
to my heart: people and the involvement of local people. We have debated
that matter in this chamber. I have set targets for the Scottish biodiversity
forum to take on board more people-centred policies. We inherited a situation
from the Conservatives whereby they reneged on their European responsibilities
to set up special areas of protection. We have righted that wrong, and
we are progressing with that policy.
Mr McGrigor:
Will the minister give way?
The Presiding
Officer: No, Mr McGrigor. The minister is
coming to a conclusion.
Allan Wilson:
I turn to an issue that is dear to my heart,
and that is social justice and sustainable employment. Sustainable employment
will bring our poorest communities out of poverty. It links our economic
agenda to our social justice agenda.
Alex Neil: rose—
The Presiding
Officer: Mr Neil, no.
Allan Wilson:
That means real jobs, using the skills of
real people, and promoting lifelong learning to allow our industries to
remain competitive, thereby ensuring that our people have sustainable jobs.
Only this week, the First Minister was at Vestas, demonstrating the clear
link between economic development, our economic strategy and our renewable
energy objectives.
In "Meeting
the Needs" we have set out our ideas and commitments. The document can
be read and understood by anyone. The First Minister will take it to Johannesburg
in August. That will be the sign that we are working with other countries
across the planet to look to the future. That takes the debate beyond the
constructs of the nation state to global co-operation. In that context,
I make the philosophical point that nationalism as a philosophy stands
against the tide of history and, more important, stands against a sustainable
future. "Meeting the Needs" meets our needs. It meets the needs of the
future. It meets the needs of Scotland. That is sustainable development.
I commend the statement to this Parliament.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
