Seòmar agus comataidhean

Helpfully, my office has written the word “farmer” at the start of the speech, to which I have added “Not yet.” However, because we will be talking about agriculture, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I have a farm in Moray.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. I thank my committee colleagues and the clerks for their work not only to scrutinise the draft plan but to produce our report over a fairly hectic three days. As I will touch on later, the process has, to my mind, been frustrating and slightly unedifying, but I am content that we as a committee have played our part well.

The committee held nine evidence sessions, a call for views and a targeted online consultation. We met young people and got out and about, with a visit to Aberdeen. I thank all of those who engaged with the committee during that process.

As the lead committee, we proposed dividing up the work on the draft plan, and I thank all the other committees involved for their work to ensure that this was a cross-committee effort. There are now four committee reports on the draft plan, including our own, and six other committees sent letters to support our work.

The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 followed advice from the Climate Change Committee that the targets to reduce emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 were no longer achievable. The 2024 act moved to a system of five-year carbon budgets, replacing annual targets, and moved back the date by which a plan was required.

The draft plan in front of us is the first under the changes made by the 2024 act, and the first statutory draft plan since the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. After the end of the parliamentary scrutiny period, which falls today, the Scottish Government must lay a final climate change plan, reflecting on the views that it has heard. The cabinet secretary has said that it is her intention to do so before dissolution in just a few weeks, but, legally, it does not have to be done within that timeframe.

As a committee, we acknowledge that there has been good progress overall, with emissions having more than halved since 1990. Recently, however, momentum has been lost, and we heard that more challenging actions will now be needed across more sectors.

We agree that delivery must be the central focus of the final plan, but we found that the draft falls somewhat short as a delivery-focused document. The plan should clearly set out how the Government will use its powers to drive down emissions. Where it does not have powers, it should be clearer about that.

We found four areas that the Government should consider. First, we recognise that all climate policy is underpinned by modelling, which is intrinsically uncertain. However, we heard that the information on emissions, costs and benefits—and the latter two, in particular—does not give the detail needed to scrutinise the Government’s assumptions. The Government should welcome informed and constructive criticism of the data and assumptions that it has used, and the final plan should provide more of that. We accepted that it would be challenging for costs and benefits modelling specifically to set out where and on whom costs will fall, but we also asked the Government to reflect on whether the draft falls short in signalling to the public and stakeholders what costs and incentives there are and who will have to pay those costs.

Secondly, we discussed the approach to monitoring in the draft plan, which includes a proposal for early warning indicators to account for the fact that accurate emissions data comes with a delay. However, the draft does not say what those indicators will be. We recommend that they be published at the earliest opportunity to ensure that corrective action can be taken when required. They should also be performance indicators, and have a clear link to the corresponding policies published in the plan.

Thirdly, we noted that delivering changes throughout the economy is a complex task; it needs co-ordinated action across the breadth of Government and with multiple partners over long periods. We discussed dependencies on UK Government action, particularly on electricity, where lower electricity costs would help—and, indeed, are desperately needed in several key areas if we are to decarbonise at the pace that is being asked.

Fourthly, we noted the critical role for local government, which I am sure the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s convener will touch on in her contribution. We also heard evidence of the support that communities and individuals need and the role that they could play in reducing emissions.

Although we welcomed the reopening of the climate engagement fund, we recommended that the Scottish Government communicate clearly what the plan means to people’s everyday lives and work with communities and others to do that. The agriculture, land use, buildings and industry sectors were considered by the rural, local government and economy committees respectively, and we agreed whole-heartedly with their conclusions and recommendations.

I will now briefly touch on the three sectors that we considered. On energy, we discussed the reliance of the draft plan on negative emissions technologies and asked the Government to set out how it would monitor whether those technologies were on track to come online in time to meet its ambitions. The committee considers that the plan relies in large part on electrification, without laying out the absolutely vital issue of how electricity costs will be reduced. We also found the plan to be insufficient in setting out how the Government proposes to meet the substantial increase in renewable energy required to electrify key technologies, especially in the absence of an updated energy strategy.

On transport, we noted that the plan places significant reliance on the uptake of electric vehicles. There is a considerable move away from the 2020 climate change plan update, which committed to an ambitious target of reducing car mileage by 20 per cent by 2030. The draft plan now proposes only a 4 per cent reduction.

We heard particularly concerning evidence from industry that plans to electrify heavy goods vehicles were totally unrealistic. The industry instead suggested that a role for drop-in biofuels would be more appropriate, and we have asked the Government to explore that.

On waste, the committee was concerned that projections for energy from waste emissions might be underestimated, following the decision to delay the enforcement of the ban on biodegradable municipal waste going to landfill shortly before the plan was submitted.

A thread that runs through the plan is just transition, and it includes the welcome addition of just transition indicators. The Economy and Fair Work Committee led that work, but we heard evidence on it, too, and we recommend that the Scottish and UK Governments work together on site-specific just transition plans where they are needed.

I will finish on the process of developing the climate change plan. I say, with regret, that the Parliament is in the same place as it was five years ago. We are doing this work right at the end of the parliamentary session, something that I counselled against as convener when we started the process.

That has been extremely challenging for committees, but it is not the primary concern; the key issue is that the Scottish Government has only three weeks if the cabinet secretary is to meet her own deadlines to finalise the plan and meet the timetable. That is bad practice, because it lowers confidence in what should be a robust process. We must remember that the Government will have to consider all the committee’s reports and the consultations with the public and then implement all of that in the final plan.

I look forward to hearing members’ views on whether the wait was worth it and whether, in the next few weeks, the draft climate change plan can be turned into a climate change plan that will get delivery back on track.

Presiding Officer, I will just say that, on the basis of the process alone, I have been underwhelmed by, and am deeply sceptical of, the way in which the Parliament has dealt with this issue.

I apologise, Presiding Officer. My notes do say to move the motion at the end of my speech, but I did not see them.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s 10th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Report on the Draft Climate Change Plan (SP Paper 1031), and the reports and letters from other committees, as referenced in the report.

15:00

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests—I have a farm in Moray, where I control deer.

Does the minister agree that deer management on the uplands of Scotland is now, in most cases, covered by deer management plans and that the problems are in the woods and the low grounds? Does the minister also agree that, rather than Forestry and Land Scotland using contracted stalkers, it would be better to have full-time employees doing proper deer management rather than just contract killing?

I thank the Liberal Democrats, particularly Jamie Greene, for bringing the debate to Parliament. Over the past 10 years, he and I have shared many committee meetings where we looked at hulls 801 and 802, and it is those vessels that I will concentrate on today.

When I was at school, when we were learning about history and Henry VIII, we were taught a little rhyme that went, “Divorced, beheaded, died; divorced, beheaded, survived”. When it comes to teaching how the Government handled hulls 801 and 802, we will be reminded that it was a case of, “Redesigned, replaced, repurposed”. When it comes to ministers, or anyone in Transport Scotland or CMAL, the one “R” that is missing from that saying is that no one was removed.

I am sure that I do not need to remind members of the many ministers who have presided over the ferries fiasco. We have had Derek Mackay, Humza Yousaf, Graeme Dey, Jenny Gilruth, Kevin Stewart and Fiona Hyslop, who, in her second incarnation when it comes to ferries, seems to be doing a lot better. We have had cabinet secretaries in the form of Michael Matheson, Màiri McAllan and now Fiona Hyslop again.

In all the time that I have been considering the ferries issue, I have not seen anyone being fired over this fiasco. I do not need to remind members, because we have already been reminded, that the contract was awarded in 2015, and it was 2017 when the—as it appeared to be at that stage—floating bathtub that was to become the Glen Sannox was launched. When those contracts were awarded, we knew that most yards across the world were working on the basis of five stage payments when it came to ferries, but—oh, no—the Scottish Government decided to work with 18 stage payments. When the yard was eventually nationalised, we paid £82 million of the £97 million, but we did not even have a ferry that was fit for purpose.

Then things got progressively worse. We end up now, as we have been told, with £460 million having been spent on the ferries, with additional loans to Ferguson Marine of £15 million and £30 million. Interestingly, no one knew that the two loans were going ahead; they went ahead sort of independently.

If we look at the total money that has been spent on the Ferguson Marine yard, it is about £1.5 million per employee. Members should let that sink in—£1.5 million per employee. Do I begrudge them that? Not a bit of it, in the sense that it is not the employees who are at fault here but the management, together with the Government’s failure to manage the situation. Let me be clear: the Government might think that it can argue that we have value for money, but, when the Glen Sannox was insured the other day, it was insured for £50 million. That is the rebuild cost. We know that building it has cost four times that amount. The market says that it would cost £50 million to replace the Glen Sannox, but look at how much we have paid.

As we come to the end of the debate, my question is, who has lost their job? No one in Transport Scotland. I can point to one or two civil servants who have moved sideways and then been promoted to other jobs. I can point to a few ministers who have moved sideways and then been promoted to other jobs. One or two ministers have disappeared out of the Parliament for other reasons, but we will not go into that.

What have the islanders got for that? They have lost business and they have lost out on receiving care—they have genuinely lost out. For that, the Parliament should be ashamed. I hope that the Government will hang its head when it comes to this ferry fiasco.

Before I close, I will just say that I have appreciated the companionship of Fiona Hyslop in the Parliament. I have enjoyed working alongside her—not always with her, and sometimes against her—and she has always done so with good humour, which has made my time in the Parliament all the richer.

16:34

It was the Government that failed.

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care’s letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee regarding the funding required for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill on 26 February, what current NHS services would potentially be reduced to meet such costs. (S6T-02930).

I am afraid that I am looking for an answer on the bill as it stands. When I come to the chamber and ask for something, the Government always tells me, “If you want to fund something, tell me whose care you will cut.” With regard to funding this bill, we know that the palliative care budget cannot be cut, as one in three people already do not get their care needs met. We know that the funding cannot come from the cancer care budget, because that is still not on target.

Can you tell me, cabinet secretary, which group of patients will lose out on their care in order to fund the bill? You must have thought about that.

I thank the cabinet secretary for the answer, but, in that letter, he said:

“the Scottish Government does not agree with the assumption that much of the provision of assisted dying would be absorbed into existing budgets”,

nor does the Scottish Government agree with Liam McArthur’s assertion

“that the Bill will have minimal cost”.

Surely the cabinet secretary is able to indicate rough costings on the bill as it currently stands. Are we not talking about tens of millions of pounds, cabinet secretary?

We in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee have heard that the underrecoveries for Ferguson Marine run at about £1 million a month. That is required just to keep the lights on, and there will be considerably larger costs to run the yard between now and when the contracts come on stream. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the figure that was given to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee—of costs of 20 to 25 per cent over and above the costs at any other yard—is what it would cost to award the vessels to Ferguson Marine? Effectively, she is ordering four boats, but she could have bought five somewhere else. Is that figure of 20 per cent no longer valid?

I welcome the purchase of Ardrossan harbour and the work that has gone into it. I will park the fact that it should have happened in 2015, when the Glen Sannox was ordered. We ordered a boat that was longer than the length of the pier, which needs to be lengthened and strengthened, and the harbour needs to be supported by a new terminal and new liquefied natural gas storage facilities. Before buying the harbour, the cabinet secretary must have worked out all the costs that are involved in doing that. Will she tell the Parliament the costs of the repairs and when they will start?