Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. As was set out, the timeline is within statute. When we received the advice, we had up to three months to lay the regulations. We took a month to do that, because the carbon budgets that were suggested are challenging. We had to make sure that the sectors concerned, and the other portfolios that have climate action at their heart, were able to discuss how we would be able to achieve them and accept the advice.

At the point at which the climate change plan was laid and finalised in the previous parliamentary session, I was in the position that you are in, convener. I felt then that we had enough time to consider the plan. I disagreed with Parliament’s decision, to be honest, because I thought that the 70 per cent target was far too challenging; I felt that it was at the extreme end. However, Parliament’s view was that we had to aim high. Maybe it is a good thing to aim high, as it means that you accelerate the action to get there.

In my opening statement, I laid out how I believe that the climate change plan can be delivered in time for the parliamentary recess. Obviously, it is up to the committee to decide how it scrutinises the draft plan, the amount of time that it spends on scrutiny and the number of evidence sessions that it has. However, I am certainly confident that the Government has the resources and the team to do that. Over the summer, my team has been working at pace on the draft climate change plan, which is why we are confident that, should the motion on the instrument be agreed to today, we can get going and have the draft plan in front of you by the end of October or the start of November.

We will of course reflect on all the recommendations from the committee. There might be differences of opinion; we do not have to accept all the committee’s recommendations, but we should of course reflect on them. That does not just concern the committees; we should also consider the consultation responses that come back from representatives of the public, of sectors and of all the stakeholders involved. We have to take all that input into account.

I recently had a discussion with someone in the rural economy and agricultural sphere. We were talking about where the locus is for stakeholders. I said that it would be important for people responding to the draft plan who think that there is evidence to submit, or who think that their sector is able to suggest ways to go further, to make that known—my door would be absolutely open. If people in a particular sector think that we have been too conservative in our estimates of what can be done in that sector and bring suggestions as to where we can boost their contribution, I would welcome that.

We are building in 120 days of parliamentary scrutiny and there is the consultation. We have already had a very useful letter from the committee on some of the responses that it has had, with links to the consultation responses. We are already looking at and following up on those. We have had engagement with stakeholders throughout the process, and we will continue to do so.

I hope that the way that I have operated since taking on my current role is through an open-door policy for parliamentarians—both those who are on the committee and those who do not sit on the committee but still have an interest in discussing proposals that they would like to see in the climate change plan. For me, this whole enterprise is collaboration focused, solutions focused, ideas focused and action focused.

As I said, we are looking at all the responses—the committee helpfully passed them on to me a couple of months ago. We also have our climate change advisory group—I believe that you come along to that, Ms Boyack. We have ramped up engagement in that group’s role.

When I took on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024, I said from the outset that I wanted to have collaboration with and buy-in from all the parties. My officials have reached out to members to provide them with as much information as possible throughout the process. I want to continue that and to have parliamentary engagement. The climate change advisory group’s role is fundamental to that as it brings all the stakeholders together.

All I can say is that we will take the feedback, we will listen and we will work with stakeholders and parliamentarians before and after the draft is laid.

Absolutely not.

It will be on the Government’s website. We can make sure that you have a copy of it.

Yes, but it is very solutions-focused rather than pointing any fingers—I hope that you will find that that is the case. The UK Government knows that it has to take action in a range of areas, because this is not a siloed piece of work; it is a four-nations and, indeed, a global problem that has to be addressed.

No. I am not going to use the same language as you or agree to that statement. We must be absolutely clear-eyed and look soberly at the actions that are required in the devolved space. It will be challenging. It will require a great deal of buy-in, a lot of transformation and a great deal of funding.

I am not going to use the phrase that you have put to me, because that sort of thing is one of the reasons why we have not been able to move further and faster. I mentioned this in my conversation with Mark Ruskell. Even small changes and policy proposals that were put forward in this Parliament early on have not had support from all parties and have not resulted in action.

We should not be saying anything like, “Tickety-boo—that is no problem.” It will be challenging, but the potential positive outcomes are worth it in that we will have a more sustainable economy, a healthier environment and more resilient communities. We will have grasped the opportunities of net zero in relation to innovation and economic growth, and I hope that, with action on electricity, we will address fuel poverty in a way that we have not been able to. We will have a Scotland that leads the way on certain technologies associated with net zero that our counterparts, such as Denmark, saw coming well before us and are now world leaders in.

Yes.

I have made my position quite clear by talking about the Peterhead station, which is the only project that is likely to go through the planning process. It would not do us any favours if I got into all that and skirted too close to breaking the ministerial code.

That area is reserved. That point is about the electricity markets that will drive the cost of wholesale electricity. However, tangentially but importantly, one area in which Scotland can play its part in reducing the electricity price is the build-out of ScotWind. We are working with the UK Government on the clean power 2030 action plan in order to develop the transmission infrastructure that will take the green energy that is being produced by ScotWind and a ramping-up of onshore wind. As a result of the efforts of the Scottish economy, particularly ScotWind, there will be a substantial contribution to the green electricity of the whole of the UK.

It should follow that, as the production of green electricity ramps up and the ability to get it on to the grid increases, we will see electricity prices go down. My point to the UK Government is that we need to see some rebalancing action now, because parts of Scotland are still fuel poor. There are policies being put in place as part of the climate change plan whose justness would be vastly improved and whose acceptance by communities and householders would be vastly increased if the price of electricity were to go down. There are industrial decarbonisation policies, but if the electricity price stays at the same level, it will be difficult for industry to decide to electrify its processes.

We need to see action now, rather than the UK Government just making assumptions that the build-out of all those developments that produce large amounts of green electricity is enough to make the price of electricity come down over time. There has to be some action to rebalance the market.