Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with the points that my colleagues have made. We should write to both the Government and CalMac. I agree with the deputy convener that the issues raised by the petitioner dating back to May are fairly urgent and that we cannot wait for the Audit Scotland report, which will probably look at a narrower set of issues. It is right that the committee takes further action.

I thank the petitioner for bringing the matter to the Parliament’s attention.

I have some questions about the proposed national public energy agency, although we have partly covered that subject. I was surprised that there is no mention of such an agency in the quite chunky draft strategy. The cabinet secretary said that a consultation started today, but I cannot see it online yet.

For the benefit of the committee, will you tell us how the proposed agency fits in with the strategy and when it might begin? We thought that there would be a public energy company that would have a role in generation, but that did not happen, so we are a bit behind. Can we be confident that the new agency will come along quickly?

Thanks, Teresa. Jess, in giving your answer, will you also reflect on your earlier remarks about the public being energised and about public expectations? I am thinking about the legacy of COP26 for people here in Scotland. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Thank you. My question was directed at Dave Reay, convener, but Mike Robinson might have something to add.

I want to pick up on what Professor Reay said about fear. There are some tough and brave decisions for politicians to make. Earlier, you said that COP26 was the most science-based COP that there has been. I wonder where the science will take us by the time we get to COP27.

Do you think that leaders, including Scotland’s First Minister, have been on a journey during COP26? Last week, the First Minister said in Parliament that projects such as Cambo should not go ahead. That decision appears to reflect the science, but politically it is probably quite difficult to say. Does that movement in the position send out a message to the leaders of other parties that we have to get with the science? Does it mean that there will be space for people to change their minds on long-standing positions?

Thank you both for those helpful remarks.

I am mindful of time, so I will try to lump a few things into one question, and witnesses can respond to the parts that are most relevant to them.

I want to return to the issue of a just transition, and, in that regard, I refer everyone to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of Unite the union and the GMB.

At the Glasgow conference, we saw climate strikers and environmentalists coming together publicly with workers and trade unions. That is a positive development. It appears that the public believe the science and are following it, but many workers are still quite sceptical about the ability of politicians and Governments to deliver a just transition, because they have never seen a just transition being delivered before. What needs to happen to make that just transition happen?

Mary Church talked about strengthening the climate change plan and developing a credible road map, and Jess Pepper touched on the issue of a route map, too. From the conversations that you have had with people at COP, what do you think people want to happen at national level?

We heard a lot about greenwashing ahead of COP and during it, in the blue zone. What can we do, in terms of public and political education, to enable us all to know that it is greenwashing when we see it, a bit like fake news? Often, we talk about education for children and young people in schools, but such education needs to be a lifelong thread running through all our lives. How can we make sure that the public have the right tools to be properly engaged in the conversation and to be able to call out greenwashing when they see it?

I was pleased to hear Mike Robinson mention the ecocide events that happened alongside COP. I had the chance to attend some of them.

I am thinking about what he and Professor Reay said about the opportunity for Scotland to lead the way and build progressive alliances. What role can Scotland play in the journey towards an ecocide law? I declare an interest as someone who is considering a member’s bill. Could Scotland play a role in that space on the climate and nature emergency?

Good morning to our witnesses. The discussion so far has been really interesting. We have heard a lot about 1.5°C—that it is on life support, that it has a faint pulse, and so on. We know that good intentions are not enough to keep 1.5 alive.

I hope that Malini Mehra can still hear us. I was interested in developing what she said about the role of parliaments—particularly for us in the Scottish Parliament, because people want to see all of us in the Parliament roll up our sleeves and get on with the actions that need to happen. Does our panel have advice for members of the Parliament on what we need to do in the short term? If Malini cannot hear us, perhaps Professor Skea—

Thank you very much. We know that the COP presidency will continue with the UK until COP27 in Egypt next year. Even though Scotland did not have a formal seat at the table, we have been able to lead through the action that has been taken on loss and damage. That has been very well received and has been a catalyst for other contributions.

We also have an opportunity to lead on the just transition. I know that a just transition declaration was agreed at COP26, but so far that has only been signed by the United States, the United Kingdom, the 27 EU countries, Norway, Canada and New Zealand. As a devolved nation, what more can we do in the run-up to COP27 to try to mainstream and embed the concept of just transition? What can we do to demonstrate that we are making progress towards that here in Scotland and in the UK?