Official Report 414KB pdf
The next item of business is a statement by Gillian Martin on “Scotland’s Climate Change Plan: 2026-2040”.
14:22
I am pleased to be able to lay the final version of our climate change plan before Parliament today, after many months of constructive engagement with the public, Parliament and stakeholders. I begin by thanking everyone who has taken the time to speak to us and to respond to our consultation, which has strengthened the plan.
The plan is Scotland’s pathway to net zero, and it outlines the action that we will take to meet our first three carbon budgets—targets that the Parliament agreed last year. It is more than a plan to meet our moral and statutory obligations, however. The climate change plan is our route map to realising economic and social gains for people across the whole of Scotland as part of a fair and just transition.
We simply cannot hang about. Scotland faces global competition. If we do not grab the opportunities for economic growth through the first-mover advantages that are outlined in the plan, others most certainly will.
The Scottish Government and I are absolutely up for this challenge. We have already seen what can happen when we take decisive action. When it comes to the renewables industry, the Office for National Statistics estimates that there are more than 35,000 jobs, directly, in Scotland’s low-carbon and renewable energy sector. Scotland has had the largest percentage increase in turnover in this sector of any nation in the United Kingdom: it rose from £5.5 billion in 2015 to £13.3 billion in 2024. That has not happened by chance; it is the result of years of policy certainty and ambition from this Government.
The CCP highlights the potential of growth areas, ranging from renewables and heat networks to the circular economy, and it sets out our commitment to increase investment in areas that will simultaneously decarbonise Scotland and improve lives.
In rural Scotland, people are already benefiting from investment in peatland restoration and tree planting. That includes job creation, community resilience, enhanced biodiversity and improvements in the natural environment, alongside the contribution that many farmers, crofters and other land managers are making on climate action.
To further support those communities and our unique natural environment, we have today also published our first environment strategy, which is designed to create an integrated framework for environment and climate policies while harnessing the powerful synergies between the health of our environment, the wellbeing of Scotland’s people and the success of our economy.
Today, we have also published our circular economy strategy, which underpins delivery of our climate goals by cutting the amount of waste that is produced in Scotland and managing our resources more sustainably to reduce emissions. Together with the climate change plan and the environment strategy, it will support us to become a net zero and nature-positive nation by transitioning towards a circular economy with sustainable levels of material use.
In finalising the climate change plan, we commissioned research from the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute on the wider socioeconomic impacts of the plan. The ECCI estimated almost £8 billion of co-benefits, particularly from the public health benefits of physical activity from active travel and reductions in conditions that are caused by harmful air pollution.
However, despite all the co-benefits and opportunities, the plan acknowledges the inconvenient truth of our age: the most dangerous and expensive choice is not to take any action at all. Do not just take my word for it. The Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Climate Change Committee have all presented evidence showing that the cost of inaction far outweighs the necessary cost of investing in net zero policies and action. That is a stark warning.
As the current situation in the middle east has shown, we must reduce our exposure to geopolitical shocks by shifting to more secure, domestically based renewable energy systems. Decisions by this Scottish National Party Government have increased the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low-cost renewable sources and have put Scotland in a more energy-secure position. Despite that, it remains the case that the electricity price that people must pay is too often set by high-cost gas. It continues to be absolutely absurd that decisions taken at Westminster by successive Labour and Tory Governments have left Scottish consumers and communities exposed. For me, the answer is clear: Scotland’s energy wealth should, right now, be protecting people here in Scotland.
We are clear that Scotland has obligations abroad to communities in the global south that are disproportionately affected by climate change. Today, I can confirm that we will provide £7.5 million of funding in the next financial year towards climate justice projects in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda, building on the successes of previous programmes to deliver locally led solutions that centre the needs of women, youth and people with disabilities. That funding demonstrates the Scottish Government’s commitment to international development, and we are proud of the role that Scotland plays on the international stage.
The final climate change plan has been strengthened through our engagement with the public, the Parliament and stakeholders. I am grateful to the more than 500 individuals and organisations who responded to the public consultation and to the nearly 2,000 people who took part in more than 100 events in our public engagement programme across Scotland.
We will continue to engage with the public as we deliver on the plan. To support that, I am pleased to announce that, through our climate engagement fund, we will fund eight organisations in 2026-27 to engage a range of audiences across Scotland, from Argyll to Aberdeenshire, in innovative and inspiring ways. Alongside that, I am announcing £250,000 for the climate action schools programme to support children and young people to learn about and take action on climate change.
Yesterday, I visited Dronley Wood in Angus to see the excellent work that is happening on the ground through the Angus climate hub, which is part of our national network of climate hubs. The hubs will continue their work to support communities to tackle and adapt to the changing climate, with £6 million of funding for next year.
With Scotland’s climate already changing due to accelerating climate adaptation, £1 million this year will support councils, community groups and businesses to strengthen their climate resilience through the Adaptation Scotland programme. The climate ready regions initiative will continue to identify regional priorities to reduce risks from flooding, coastal erosion, extreme heat and water scarcity.
Together, the funding demonstrates the importance that this Government places on empowering communities to take action on climate change.
I am grateful to colleagues from across the chamber for their engagement on the draft plan. We received scrutiny reports from four parliamentary committees and a further six offered evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I was pleased to give evidence to the committee in February, following evidence sessions that were undertaken by my cabinet colleagues on their portfolios, and to take part in the NZETC-led debate on the plan, which took place earlier this month.
We have considered every recommendation from each committee and have made changes to crucial areas of the plan. We have responded to the call for more information about delivery by setting out how we will design implementation by working with partners to get the right mechanisms in place, alongside having a robust early warning and monitoring system. Our delivery approach will be agile, pivoting to corrective action if needed and taking advantage of new opportunities.
We have also responded to requests for more information about the methodologies used to evaluate policies and costs by providing a significantly expanded analytical annex. As I have already set out, we have also given much more detail about the benefits and co-benefits of the plan.
In closing, I make it clear that the Scottish Government cannot deliver the plan alone. It is Scotland’s climate change plan, and we need people, communities and businesses to work with us on that shared national endeavour. We also need the Parliament to work with us to deliver the policies. There is no denying that we are witnessing a concerning rise in anti-climate rhetoric, but the plan proves the economic and social case for action, and those of us who believe in the need for climate action, in the science behind it and in the economic imperative that I have outlined must stand firm against those wilfully disruptive and egregious voices.
Just this week, we saw a new warning from the United Nations, which said that the past 11 years were the warmest on record. We should not need any more warnings because the science is clear. We must act, so it is essential that the Parliament works together to deliver the plan and to reach net zero, with all the benefits that that will bring. It is a national challenge that Scotland must meet, because the prize is not only a healthier climate but warmer homes, cleaner air and happier, more equitable and prosperous communities.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for those questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. Members who wish to put a question should press their request-to-speak buttons.
Back in November, I criticised the draft climate change plan for being yet another Scottish National Party propaganda pamphlet that was heavy on rhetoric and light on detail, and the full plan is more of the same. With just one day to go before the parliamentary session ends, we have been presented with more uncosted SNP proposals that will make hard-working Scots poorer, but we still have no energy strategy.
At a time when household bills are rising across the country, it makes no sense to slap on additional costs by forcing Scots to rip out their gas boilers and abandon their petrol cars while sending more taxpayer money abroad. Instead, we should be drilling in the North Sea so that we are less reliant on carbon-intensive imports from foreign countries, while supporting households to make the changes that work for them.
Will the cabinet secretary apologise for finding the time to jet all over the world while failing to produce an energy strategy? When will the cabinet secretary come forward with more detail about the cost of the policies included in the plan, so that she can finally be honest with Scots about how much it will cost them?
I mentioned some of the voices against climate action and we need no further demonstration of that type of voice than what we hear from Douglas Lumsden.
The climate change plan sets out a fair and ambitious pathway towards meeting our first three carbon budgets. It drives £42 billion in direct financial benefits and cost savings for households, businesses and Government, in more cost-effective transport systems, more efficient heating and wider support to decarbonise industry. The plan will also, as I have mentioned—and as has been said in an independent report—provide more than £8 billion in co-benefits, including through improvements in population health brought about by active travel, warmer homes and cleaner air. The plan creates and sustains thousands of jobs across a range of sectors and in all parts of the country, from jobs in our renewables industry—which Douglas Lumsden is not interested in supporting—to jobs restoring peatland and planting trees, which help farmers and crofters to diversify their incomes.
The plan works together with the environment strategy and the circular economy strategy. If I am lucky enough to be back in Parliament and lucky enough to be still doing this job, I will continue to deliver on the plan, which will include working globally with other sub-national and national Governments that understand that the fundamental challenge of our time is decarbonisation.
I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of her statement, and I thank all the stakeholders who gave their views on how the draft climate change plan should be strengthened.
I agree with the cabinet secretary’s reference to yesterday’s warning that climate change is now accelerating and will negatively impact on people’s lives. I note, for example, the 400,000 homes and buildings in Scotland that are now at risk of flooding.
It is crucial that the next Scottish Government has strong leadership and that it focuses on delivery. It must ensure that people get support to make their homes warm and energy efficient; support on solar, heat pumps and heat networks; affordable and accessible buses that they can rely on, with links to our railways; investment in our land to restore our peatlands; and a joined-up approach to food production and biodiversity. It must also ensure that councils and communities have the financial support to deliver community heat and power projects that will transform people’s lives.
What is new in the final plan? Does the cabinet secretary agree that members in the next parliamentary session must change how we scrutinise implementation? Proper parliamentary scrutiny of the climate change plan has not been enabled today, and we have not heard from the cabinet secretary which recommendations have now been included in the plan. We need an urgent focus on implementation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that a key message from those who gave evidence to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and other parliamentary committees was that it is all about delivery and that the draft plan did not go far enough?
We have taken on the recommendations of a number of committees, particularly on the monitoring and evaluation approach, in the final plan. We need to ensure that we are clear about where delivery is on track and where further action is needed, but also about areas that might be slipping. I set out in my statement some of the ways of doing that. It is covered in one of the annexes, which has been significantly improved in terms of the detail. In the climate change plan, we also set out greater detail on our methodology in order to provide greater transparency on the key assumptions and dependencies.
However, Sarah Boyack is absolutely right, and that is where constructive criticism comes in—constructive criticism that recognises all the things in the plan that we need to do. It is absolutely right that we are scrutinised on the delivery of that. That delivery will also be the job of the Parliament in the next session, and it will have to done on a cross-party basis. The nature of that debate must involve the type of constructive criticism that we have just heard from Sarah Boyack, who asked whether we can do more and whether we can give more detail. We have given more detail in the final plan. We have announced a new levy on private jet usage, introduced a new £2 bus fare cap pilot in Shetland and the Western Isles, and we have also boosted our proposed pace of heat network connections.
The fundamental criticisms that came back about the draft plan were about how we measure deliverability. That will be a job for the Parliament in the next session, but it is also about delivering on the plans when they come to the Parliament. Cross-party support will be required in order to deliver on the actions. Unfortunately, that has been sadly lacking in recent years.
The cabinet secretary pointed out in her statement that the SNP Government has increased the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low-cost renewable sources and has put Scotland in a more energy-secure position. However, in order to meet the targets in the climate change plan and ensure fair costs for households and businesses, the cost of electricity must come down.
What pressure is the Scottish Government putting on the UK Government to change the illogical electricity pricing regime that exists on these islands so that Scots can get a fair deal? Does the cabinet secretary share my view that the best way to ensure cheaper electricity is with the fresh start that independence would provide? [Interruption.]
There might be groans from those to the left of me, who do not want to grow our economy by investing in new technologies for our energy, but Kevin Stewart is absolutely right: that is a key example of how the constraints of devolution mean that we are, effectively, trying to deliver societal and economic transformation with one hand tied behind our back.
As we know, and as was reinforced during the scrutiny period of the climate change plan, the price of electricity is crucial to our climate ambitions, including electric vehicle roll-out, industrial decarbonisation and clean heating for houses. I am not the only one who says that; the Climate Change Committee says that electricity costs have to come down. That will also be critical for what the UK Government wants to do to reach net zero by 2050.
When it comes to the current situation in the middle east, decisions by the Scottish Government to increase the amount of electricity that is generated in Scotland from low-cost renewable sources has put us in a position whereby electricity bills should be a lot lower for people in Scotland, and are a clear example of why those powers should be in the hands of Scotland rather than in those of successive UK Governments, which continue to leave Scottish consumers and communities exposed. It would mean that more communities in Scotland would welcome developments in their area, because they would see the tangible benefits in their electricity bills. However, critically, until the cost of electricity comes down, we will struggle to deliver in a lot of those areas in a just way. Kevin Stewart is absolutely right about the way to get that energy security and decarbonisation.
Finally, we have the climate change plan, on the penultimate sitting day of the parliamentary session. In the 40 minutes that we have had to look at it—let me be clear that I have always called for that period to be much longer—I have found no clear synopsis of the changes from the draft plan to the final plan. I expected that to be in a few pages in annex 4.
The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee said that the targets for changing heavy goods vehicles to electric HGVs were unachievable. The committee called for drop-in fuels. Is that in the plan?
I do not understand. I have to be honest and say that I did not catch the end of Edward Mountain’s question about drop-in fuels. I will need to consult him afterwards about what he meant.
There will be £6.6 billion in co-benefits from the changes in the transport sector, relating to improved health outcomes, increased exercise and reduced pollution, which I mentioned in my statement. I mentioned the changes from the draft plan in my statement and in my response to Sarah Boyack. We have boosted the monitoring and evaluation approach in the final plan and have set out greater detail on the methodology.
The committee of which Edward Mountain is convener asked for more information on the co-benefits in the plan, and we have given an awful lot more detail on what can be delivered. However, on his substantive question on fuels—it might have been about biofuels—I will have to pick that up with him later, because I did not quite hear what he was asking.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With respect, I find that answer to my question to be troubling, because it is clear that the NZET Committee called for drop-in fuels—not just biofuels but a combination of fuels to allow diesel vehicles to continue to work. I find it difficult to understand why the cabinet secretary does not understand that, given that it was a recommendation in our report. Is there a way in which I can get an answer to my question? At the moment, I have not had one.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. That was not a point of order, but the cabinet secretary has heard your comments and has offered to be in touch with you on that issue.
Over the past few years, I have met and engaged with the East Lothian Climate Hub and seen its work across East Lothian. It has engaged with communities to embed the work that is needed to tackle the climate emergency. What commitment can the cabinet secretary give to the existing climate hubs about supporting them to continue the progress that they have already made?
Paul McLennan is a big supporter of and advocate for the work of his local climate hub.
Community climate action is a vital part of our communities’ journey to net zero. We have a national network of climate hubs and funding to support them.
Between April 2024 and December 2025, those hubs delivered more than 2,600 workshops across the whole of Scotland, reached 48,000 people and provided support to community groups, ensuring that climate risks and solutions are embedded in many local place plans. I was grateful to be able to discuss the draft climate change plan with all our climate action hubs online during the period of scrutiny of the plan. Given the hugely important role that the hubs play in delivering local solutions on the ground, they want to do more, and be supported to deliver more, for the individuals and groups in their area, and I am happy to support them.
I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. I welcome Scotland’s new climate change plan, which is of crucial importance for workers and communities in the North East Scotland region that I have been so privileged to represent for the past five years.
However, my constituents are still not seeing the just transition that they have repeatedly been promised. The misinformation that is circulating that more drilling is the answer does my constituents a grave disservice, as we know that the North Sea basin is in terminal decline and that gas prices are set internationally. That is exactly why we must heed the just transition commission’s warning that, if the Scottish Government does not use every lever at its disposal to fight the climate crisis, we risk losing the social licence for climate action to dangerous climate change deniers. Will the cabinet secretary set out which, if any, of the recommendations of the just transition commission’s report have made it into the climate change plan?
I was pleased that the just transition commission was complimentary about how we had embedded just transition throughout the draft plan. The commission is, rightly, often critical of some of the measures that we perhaps do not take fast enough. I was therefore really pleased to get its endorsement of the draft plan.
Mercedes Villalba makes a critical point, which is that we have to face reality. Two realities are happening. One is that we are far too reliant on the burning of fossil fuel. That is the case not only in this country but in countries across the whole world, and we are seeing the effects of that, including in the weather events that are impacting all our communities. The other reality, which is closer to home, is the fact that we passed peak oil and gas a couple of decades ago. We cannot rely on the North Sea to keep delivering oil and gas domestically for another 50 years. It is a declining basin, and so we need to have a fair and managed transition.
At the moment, I believe that the decline of the industry and the supply chain in North Sea oil and gas is happening too quickly and in a cliff-edge way. That has to be avoided, because we need to ensure that we have all the work associated with oil and gas, and renewables and decommissioning, for our wider supply chain. That is what I am trying to do as energy minister, and that is what my Government is trying to do. We will work with any partners who have that at their heart.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her statement. I very much agree with her comments about securing the economic value of decarbonisation and achieving net zero. The cabinet secretary will recognise that one of the key areas in which we need to see further decarbonisation is the transport sector, including in the bus sector. Alexander Dennis Ltd, a company based in my constituency, is a world leader in low-carbon and zero-emission buses. When do we expect to hear the outcome from round 3 of the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund, which is seeing the further roll-out of zero-emission and low-carbon buses in Scotland, which are critical not only to Alexander Dennis but to achieving net zero by 2045?
I have the Cabinet Secretary for Transport sitting next to me, who has just told me that that will be announced very soon. As Michael Matheson knows, we are investing a further £45 million to support the adoption of zero-emission buses through the third phase of ScotZEB.
I am grateful for advance sight of the documents.
A great many of the criticisms of the draft plan were not about methodology and measurements but policy and substance, given that the SNP has spent much of the past two years delaying, ditching or downgrading climate action. In particular, will the cabinet secretary tell us how on earth she expects to see the scale of investment that Scotland needs in the clean heat sector, having just ripped out the heart of the heat in buildings programme, depriving the industry of the certainty that it needs?
Does she have any advice for a future cabinet secretary for climate, who is going to have to deliver a completely impossible scale of acceleration on heat decarbonisation in the 2030s, as a result of this slow action now?
Màiri McAllan has responsibility for domestic heat now, and she has outlined some of the actions that she will take forward, should she retain her position in the next Government and should we be lucky enough to be back in government. Patrick Harvie worked hard when he was a minister on a set of policies associated with decarbonising heat in buildings. I have to say that I did not find those policies to be particularly conducive to a just transition, in that many of them relied on the cost of electricity coming down. What I did not want to do, as the cabinet secretary with responsibility for climate action, was put forward policies that would mean that we increased fuel poverty. I have been lobbying the UK Government—two UK Governments—ever since I was Minister for Energy—[Interruption.]
Let us hear the cabinet secretary.
—to reform the electricity market. Both Governments have dithered in that respect, and we are not getting clarity on that. I am getting further with the Labour Government than I ever got with the Conservatives, who barely even wanted to meet me on any of this. However, until the price of electricity comes down, we will not see a seismic shift to electricity-based heating. We have to invest in heat networks. Màiri McAllan has set out some of our plans associated with the new bill that will be introduced, should my party be back in government. Heat networks are a way to build in private investment, and a plan will be set out for how we will do that in the next session of Parliament.
I am keen to protect time for the next item of business, so I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
As the co-convener of the cross-party group on Malawi, I welcome the announcement on funding for Malawi, but may I also advise the cabinet secretary that no one who I have spoken to in the energy sector believes that breaking up the UK is the answer to the maiden’s prayer? Nesta has pointed to the significant underestimation of the pace that is needed on heat decarbonisation, while the Climate Change Committee has pointed to the gap between ambition and delivery. The cabinet secretary is right about the need for cross-party agreement on a way forward, but what confidence can people across Scotland have that this plan will not simply result in a further round of missed targets?
When I talk about cross-party action, I also talk about cross-party action on delivering on the reserved policies and actions that are needed, which will have a fundamental impact on some of the policies set out in the climate change plan. We need swifter action on the funding of Acorn, which has been mentioned, in relation to carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and we need electricity prices to come down. I am always willing to work with people across the Parliament who have ideas on how we can drive forward action in a way that is just, does not put people into fuel poverty and that means that we can capitalise on the investment in renewables in all our areas. I want to work with Liam McArthur and his colleagues in the next session of Parliament to do that. In particular, as he knows, we have many opportunities in Orkney to decarbonise and to roll out and commercialise much more of the innovation that is associated with climate action.
Ensuring that Scotland can effectively crowd in private investment is an essential part of delivering this plan, not least given the Scottish Government’s limited fiscal levers. Can the cabinet secretary provide any examples of the Scottish Government’s work to make that a reality? How will the Government ensure that we continue to do that, given that climate action cannot be delivered by the Government alone?
What Jackie Dunbar has just outlined is critical: public money will not deliver on all the actions of the climate change plan. It can be used as seed funding at the very beginning of some of the things that we want to happen, but crowding in inward investment will really boost jobs and the tax take for Scotland and will mean that we achieve a seismic change in the economy. Since the publication of the draft climate change plan, we have been able to see our ambition to deliver that change. Last November, we launched our new InvestScotland portal, which showcases to global capital investors investment-ready opportunities in Scotland, from heat networks to renewables.
In addition, there are already examples of the public and private sectors working together to deliver their emissions reduction ambitions, which will be built on as a result of the plan. For example, there was early public funding of EV charging, backed by our strong ambition and commitment, which attracted enough private investment to allow us to meet our public charge point targets two years ahead of schedule. In offshore wind, £670 million of private investment has been leveraged from £150 million of Scottish public funding to date, creating and sustaining thousands of jobs. There are more sectors in which we can do that, and I am keen to do so.
On the subject of public money, the entire premise of the climate plan is that the renewable investment that is outlined happens only because of subsidies from bill payers across the UK.
I want to speak about transport. The SNP Government has committed to reducing car kilometres by 4 per cent and has said that at least 90 per cent of all car sales must be of electric vehicles by 2030. Can the cabinet secretary tell me how much those proposals will cost the average driver and, importantly, how the Scottish Government will ensure that the drive to net zero will not disproportionately impact motorists?
What Sue Webber is not saying is that, actually, that is a UK-wide endeavour, and that a lot of the actions that are happening at UK level will prompt the change across Scotland. We are committed to doing what we can, particularly in relation to the EV charging network—which, as an EV driver, I know has improved dramatically in the past five years and which is set to improve even more. The Government schemes to enable people to buy used and new EV cars have meant that people have had access to those types of vehicle.
There will be an inevitable reduction in car kilometres as we build out our public transport networks and as people want to take active travel decisions. However, those who, like me, live in rural areas of Scotland will still need a car. That is why EVs will be critical to decarbonising road transport.
I welcome the climate change plan and its focus on a fair and just transition. Given the importance of rural economies, can the cabinet secretary outline how the plan will support regions such as Dumfries and Galloway through, for instance, the dairy sector, with technologies such as biogas, while also strengthening Scotland’s long-term food security?
Emma Harper has a long-standing interest in biofuels, biogas, the circular economy and anaerobic digestion; I thank her for the spotlight that she has shone on them.
The plan ensures that the agriculture sector, including in Dumfries and Galloway, has the necessary support to deliver the emissions reduction required and the nature restoration opportunities that will improve overall farm sustainability. We want to produce more of our own food sustainably. I wanted to be clear that there is no contradiction in producing high-quality food in a way that delivers for climate and nature at the same time.
I recognise the potential role of bio-energy to reduce emissions in rural areas, contribute to the circular economy and improve the bottom line for farm businesses. In order to realise the potential in the sector, we need action from the UK Government and engagement with Westminster colleagues as they consider policy options for the next iteration of the green gas support scheme. The current scheme is due to end in two years’ time.
Rural communities across Galloway and rural Scotland are facing a surge of unwanted onshore wind farm and renewable proposals, industrialising our rural landscape. The SNP Government continues to leave them without clarity, protection or a voice. They want to know when the Scottish Government will finally publish its energy strategy and just transition plan. Quite simply, the question is: when will it be published?
It will be critical that our energy strategy is set out when we have clarity around the strategic spatial energy plan review and the Supreme Court rulings, the outcome of which we are waiting for. Every Government is looking to that as they put out their strategies for the next five years—never mind the next 15 years, as this climate change plan has a route map to.
That concludes the ministerial statement. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Air ais
Topical Question Time