Seòmar agus comataidhean

You will just have to suck it up.

No.

We seem to be in an almost legislatively surreal situation—a kind of back-to-front world—and it is difficult to make sense of that. The cabinet secretary said that there has been quite a solid and more rational conversation between Government departments at UK level and at Scottish Government level. I am interested to explore what a rational way forward might be, given that, regrettably, as you say, it looks like the bill will not be dropped. For example, is there a way to push the sunset clause back to 2026 and to consider laws in a more phased approach? Has there been any appetite from UK Government ministers to do that? Alternatively, is there a way in which we can fast-track the retention of EU law in the next 13 months?

It is useful to know how that is working out.

I want to ask about risk. We have heard evidence, which has been repeated today, on how laws are interrelated and interlinked. With food standards, for example, the cliff edge presents the threat that we default back to a time when there was no law—in effect, a lawless time. There is a lot of risk that Governments could be challenged and disastrous situations could occur that result in Governments having to fight legal battles for a long time on particular issues. How is that risk being assessed in the Scottish Government? Are teams of officials locked up having to look at the interrelated nature of laws and where there may be legal challenge in certain areas or particular risks to the public, as with food standards? How do you start to get a grip of that?

Last week, non-governmental organisations gave us a good example of invasive species legislation being split between UK and devolved Administrations.

My last question is about budgets. The UK Government has given you a challenging budget, and inevitably that will be putting substantial downward pressure on Government departments. What are the potential resourcing implications of the bill? You are still trying to work that out, I guess. We have heard about the impact on the programme for government and policy priorities, but what might the resourcing implications be?

Earlier this year, I visited, with the cabinet secretary, Touch primary school, where we saw the pioneering neurodevelopmental pathway project that is being trialled by schools in the area. However, I am still hearing from families in Fife who are desperate for that kind of multi-agency support for their children to be rolled out further.

Has the pilot concluded, what findings were gleaned from the trial and does the Scottish Government have firm plans to roll out that type of programme to other areas across Scotland?

In the previous session of the Parliament, four parliamentary committees raised serious concerns that the climate change plan was not fit for purpose, so it was good to hear the CCC finally reflect many of those concerns in its report.

Undoubtedly, the new climate change plan must do better, so will the cabinet secretary accept that we urgently need to drive down the growth in aviation mileage and that no options should be off the table to do that?

It is very welcome to see the on-going alignment with EU law. Stakeholder engagement was one of the issues raised in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Obviously, stakeholder engagement in Europe is extremely detailed throughout the policy development process and the development of regulations. Now that we are out of that system, minister, how have we attempted to replicate that stakeholder engagement at an appropriate level with the adoption of the regulations? Indeed, how are you involving stakeholders with regard to what might come forward through the directive over time that we might wish to align to? We have lost that architecture of really in-depth stakeholder engagement.

I have a point of clarification. I am interested in the provision that allows, in effect, a free allocation under the emissions trading scheme if heat is going to another source so that, instead of heat being wasted, it is taken out of the industrial process and used somewhere else. Are there particular standards for that? Does the heat have to go to housing or to other industrial processes? Are there any criteria around that? I do not have any further comments on the SI beyond seeking that clarification, which it would be useful to receive in some form.

Sorry, in that case, no.

The biodiversity COP starting this week underlines how the climate and nature crises are two sides of the same coin. In Scotland, rising temperatures have threatened some of our most iconic species. The very habitats, such as peatlands, that can help us to naturally capture and store carbon from the atmosphere are now under threat, causing them to release the carbon that they hold. I look forward to the forthcoming Scottish biodiversity strategy starting to address those twin crises head on.

Much in the Scottish Government’s programme for government has put us on a faster route to net zero. There is an ambitious heat in buildings strategy; free bus travel for the under-22s, which we learned today is now benefiting more than half a million young Scots; a surge in tree planting; and a new deal for wind power. However, no Government is yet going far enough and the UKCCC and Scotland’s Climate Assembly have both highlighted areas for faster and more radical change, especially in the areas of aviation, peatland restoration and diet change. Like other members, I am sure that there will be further challenges when the UKCCC releases its Scotland update report tomorrow.

The challenging and necessary targets set by this Parliament mean that a far more ambitious climate plan must be developed early next year. The current plan is already way out of date and does not reflect the ambitions of the Bute house agreement. No options should be off the table in developing the new climate plan. The leadership shown by the French Government, which this week banned domestic flights where there is a rail alternative, signals the kind of options that must be considered if we are truly to deliver. Whether we currently have the powers is a different question, but we must spell out what is necessary.

It is clear that an outdated business-as-usual model will lead us down a road of no return. I will continue working as a member of the NZET Committee and with Greens in the Government to ensure that Scotland delivers transformative action on climate and nature.