Seòmar agus comataidhean

I can see that you are trying to continue to keep us motivated so that we do not catastrophise and ask, “What is the point because we cannot make any progress?” The change is coming anyway as we edge towards 1.5°C and beyond.

As policy makers, how should we be looking at, for example, flood defences and investment in Scottish Water over the next 10, 20 or 30 years? What scenario should we be preparing for at this point? Is it about saying that we think that the change will be about 1.6°C or 1.7°C and therefore we should be upgrading our flood mitigation measures along that line, or should we be looking at potentially far greater increases? How do you pitch that? There is an immediate investment programme—I think that the one for Scottish Water will be for the next five years—but how should policy makers and investors look at the longer-term investment in infrastructure, bearing in mind what might come? It would be irresponsible not to consider that outcome.

I am content that the instrument would align us with some of the international conventions on mercury, which are about protecting human health and the environment. However, I would like the UK Government to go further and align with the European Union, particularly on areas such as the use of mercury, amalgam in dentistry and sodium lights, and a range of other areas. It would be useful to get the Scottish Government’s view on whether it wants to work towards alignment with the EU in relation to mercury-added products. If so, I would like to know how it is working on a four-nations basis with ministers from across the UK to achieve that, and by when.

I want to stay on flooding and on the investment issue. We have had evidence from Audit Scotland that the costs of the major flood management schemes—the concrete schemes, I guess you could call them—have trebled over the past decade. Bearing in mind what you said earlier about the potential impacts, in particular if we start looking at going beyond an increase of 2°C, is that balance right at the moment? Is there a need to think again about preventative measures, nature-based solutions and catchment management?

At the moment, it feels as though a blend of solutions emerges. We try not to build on the carses and the meadows if we can, although housing developments still happen. There is a nod to nature-based solutions within catchment management, but it never feels as though they become a major part of our approach to flood mitigation. Given the spiralling costs, what do the future options look like?

Is it a concern that the baseline keeps shifting, though? For example, the flood defence scheme that was built in Brechin was originally designed to deal with a one-in-50-years event. Now the figure has changed to a one-in-20-years event. Is there not an issue there with the assessment of risk changing and that what we would design for a relatively commonplace event is now being blown out of the water, quite literally?

What would that mean for the UK?

But not 3°C?

Are some of those infrastructure solutions scalable? You mentioned the Thames barrier. Did we have a 3°C or 4°C world in mind when options were being looked at for that? Could future investment in the next five to 10 years be scaled up in the decades ahead to meet the needs of a 3°C or 4°C warming world, or do you reach a point where you say, “Okay, we are just going to have to think again”?

So the approach is very much about creating the right foundation for adaptation now—in the next decade or two—and then being able to build on that, rather than say, “Okay. This community is unliveable. We need to abandon it” or, for instance, in a coastal community, “We cannot build our way out of this. We cannot adapt”.

ExxonMobil and Paul Greenwood should hang their heads in shame for the way that they have treated workers today in locking people out of the workplace. It is absolutely disgraceful and shameful.

For years, I have been calling for a union-led Mossmorran just transition plan in order to secure jobs and investment in the site and to cut climate pollution. In June 2024, the Minister for Climate Action told me, in this chamber, that work would be started on a Mossmorran plan “in early 2025”. Where is the plan? There is no mention of it in the statement—there is just a blame game between Governments.

I welcome the fact that the 26-week furlough scheme has been in place since September and is supporting workers at ADL. However, I am still trying to gauge how deep the Scottish Government’s commitment is to ADL. What will happen if, at the end of that 26-week process, the orders have not come? Obviously, I hope that they will, but if not, will the Government be prepared to extend the furlough scheme?

Also, £45 million will be coming out of ScotZEB 3, and we hope that ADL will get some business on the back of that. Will that be announced before the end of the furlough scheme, which could help to give ADL some more certainty?