Seòmar agus comataidhean

If I have time in hand.

Will the member take an intervention?

After COP27, the odds are now, sadly, stacked against keeping the world to 1.5° of heating. The UN secretary general described the latest IPCC report as an “atlas of human suffering”. This is what we now face; it is completely inevitable.

However, the threat should galvanise us, because, even if 1.5° is now dead, we must redouble our efforts to keep hope and progress alive. It will not be enough to have short-term technical decarbonisation plans that allow business as usual to simply continue. We need a revolution in our thinking, and we must look forward to future generations with every action that we take, because the footprints that we leave today will last for generations to come.

It is time to join the dots and see the connections in what is already happening to our world. Europe is currently heating at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, while the Arctic is heating three times faster. Every fraction of a degree of Arctic temperature increase has resulted in a more erratic polar jet stream, bringing heat waves, droughts, forest fires and excess deaths across Europe.

A melting Arctic permafrost could mean game over for this planet. If the tipping point is reached, 25 to 40 per cent of global carbon budgets could be blown by permafrost emissions alone. We are one people living on one planet with a shared history and a shared future, and what happens in the Arctic writes the future of a community in Bangladesh.

That is why it was so important that COP27 finally took a critical step forward towards climate reparations for nations that are at the front line of the crisis, with a dedicated fund established for loss and damage. However, as the conference came to a close, we saw the progress that was made in Glasgow start to wither away without delivering the necessary commitments on a phase-out from all fossil fuels.

Despite Alok Sharma’s leadership at COP26 and his calls for a phasing out of all fossil fuels, the Westminster Government has largely continued with business as usual. Despite continuing calls from the International Energy Agency for there to be

“no new investments in oil, gas and coal”,

we have seen a disastrous expansion of oil and gas licences in the North Sea and may even see permission being granted this week for a new mega coal mine in the north of England. We cannot drill our way out of either the energy cost crisis or the climate emergency; the answer to both of those is a rapid transition away from oil and gas that delivers for both workers and the planet.

COP26 showed us that, when they work together, small nations can lead the world on climate justice. That is exactly the message sent by the launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, when a flotilla of countries joined together to plan for a fair and fast phase-out of fossil fuels. Chile, Fiji, and Washington were among the newest members to join the alliance and commit to fossil fuel phase-out dates at COP27. I expect that this Government’s programme of work to understand our energy requirements in Scotland will lead to us joining that growing network of climate leaders.

It is also crucial that the Scottish Government continues dialogue with Westminster about joining international calls for collective withdrawal from the Energy Charter treaty, which is now beyond reform. Fossil fuel companies should not be allowed to sue Governments for hundreds of millions of pounds if they introduce policies that limit the use of coal, oil and gas in line with our climate ambitions.

Okay, but the main point here is that we have not adopted the acquis that the principles are part of, so we are no longer part of that. The principles might be in the treaty of Lisbon or whatever, but we are no longer part of that—we are not in that context any more—so where they get put is important.

I want to pick up on a point that Professor Reid raised at the beginning of the meeting—it would be good to get others’ reflections on it as well—about EU case law and its status, which has been built up over many decades. There is a phrase in the bill about EU case law restricting

“the proper development of domestic law.”

The committee has been struggling to understand what constitutes “proper development”, so I wonder whether Professor Reid could offer some thoughts on that. It would be useful to hear whether others have concerns or questions about how they think that that might play out with regard to the habitats regulations or other EU case law.

I was also interested in the interrelationship with the environmental principles. Lloyd Austin said that the environmental principles are not yet embedded, although they have been stated. Do the principles run through case law? For example, is the precautionary principle embedded in case law, but not embedded enough in legislation to ensure that it would remain in place?

I am struggling to think through how all this law can be retained in a fast-tracked way. Is there a competent way to fast-track retention of law? I think that David Bowles said earlier that we could put it all in an appendix and have thousands and thousands of laws.

Is there a danger that if laws were fast-tracked, that might be seen as being inadequate and could be legally challenged because proper impact assessments were not done for every single one of the thousands of laws? I am trying to understand what the complexities might be and whether there is a genuinely simple way, should ministers wish to use it, to retain that law.

I should declare an interest in that I am an associate member of the British Veterinary Association, although not a doctor.

I want to pick up on the third theme, which is about practical considerations, although I think that we have covered some of that already in the answers. We know that it is only 13 months to the guillotine, as it has been described. Could the witnesses give us their reflections on what that means for their organisations and how they anticipate working directly with Government departments, particularly DEFRA?

You are having to review 570 laws. We have heard general concerns about resource and staff implications, but how are you practically trying to work with that challenge in engaging with your members and Government departments, setting up working groups and so on? What does that stakeholder engagement look like for you? These decisions will need to be made if there is a sunset timescale of 13 months, rather than a phased approach being taken or a much more distant deadline being put in place.

That was a useful reflection on the impact. I am interested also in what practical measures you are putting in place, because the clock is really ticking on this.

I am getting the sense that there is not a plan—no one has said to you, “These are the dates by which you need to respond”. Sarah Millar, do you have a view?