Seòmar agus comataidhean

Of course, and I appreciate that, convener. I will try to take it back to the generality, which is that my reason for raising the issue of fuel duty is not to comment on its current rates or the way in which it is currently organised. Instead, I point out that it should be reformed to have a climate focus and that, so long as it is in its current form, it is charging and overseeing something that I think needs to be reformed. I will not comment on the current rates and so on.

Unfortunately, I cannot say, but I am sure that the transport secretary will be able to.

I understand your uncertainty, convener. I equally have uncertainty. I am not in receipt of the advice. The First Minister has sought advice for ministers from the permanent secretary, but we do not have that yet, which makes it a little more difficult. I am giving answers that are as full as I can make them. For example, in response to Mr Lumsden’s question on electric vehicle charging points, I confirmed a point about the policy—that the points are additional—but I could not confirm the timeline. Even if I could, however, I am not the transport secretary. The detail of policies in packages that are outside my portfolio will be a matter for the relevant cabinet secretary.

The ending of the Bute house agreement clearly means that we no longer have Green ministers. However, much of what we are referring to in respect of decarbonisation of buildings and the natural environment relates to Scottish National Party priorities that we were taking forward in advance of joining with colleagues in the Greens and will continue to take forward. We will look to work with colleagues from across the chamber in pursuit of those priorities.

The existence of a right to a healthy environment that is properly accessible and judiciable is a very important part of a human rights bill in Scotland. I cannot confirm the timetable for the human rights bill, not because of the purdah question but because it is the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice who is leading on that bill. However, I can confirm to the committee that I and my officials in environment have been closely engaged with the development of the bill to date, including the question of a right to a healthy environment.

Yes, that is a very simple question, convener.

I will take the question globally and then address it from a Scottish perspective. As you said, there is scepticism about whether the 1.5°C target can be met. Of course, 2023 was the hottest year on record, and we surpassed 1.5°C for, I think, the whole year. However, that rise was not sustained and therefore the Paris agreement was not breached, but it is deeply concerning and unacceptable.

The global stocktake at COP28 and the work that came from that considered the commitments that have been made in terms of fossil fuel and so on and determined that the target of 1.5°C could be kept alive globally if the actions of states were in line with that.

In respect of Scotland’s position—noting, of course, that Scotland cannot solve the climate crisis, but that the climate crisis cannot be solved without countries such as Scotland doing their bit—my understanding is that retaining 2045 in our legislation would keep us aligned to 1.5°C. I will ask questions of, and seek advice from, the Climate Change Committee when it comes to setting those carbon budgets.

I think that 2045 remains the correct aim, and the CCC has recently confirmed its view that 2045 remains the correct net zero target for Scotland.

I am glad to take the opportunity in closing today to restate the value that I put on following science, so that what we do is feasible as well as ambitious.

I think that that is a very fair observation. I will seek to answer all your questions, but please do come back to me if I miss any of them.

I would just start by saying that there was always an understanding that the A9 was a complex project. Indeed, I said as much in my statement to Parliament. It is actually 11 complex projects, and it is evident right from the early papers that Alex Neil received that it is complex in the statutory processes that have to be gone through, in its design, in the procurement approach, and then, of course, in the way that it is funded.

Convener, you mentioned 2017-18 as being the point at which, in your view, it was accepted that the target date of 2025 was not doable. For the record, I would refute that; I would say that it was not until late 2022 that ministers were finally advised that there was no practical route to completion by 2025. I accept that, as time goes on, there is a diminishing likelihood of completion by 2025. That is plain, as that would require ever more capital up front and ever more disruption on the route.

The advice from 2017 that you are thinking about and referring to is the advice that ministers received on moving to a new private finance model and the advice that developing such a model in and of itself would take so much time that we would be pushing beyond 2025. There was always an understanding that an entirely capital-funded approach, with increasing levels of disruption, remained possible, although I accept with a diminishing likelihood.

There are two sides to that question, and I will try to take them both. I might briefly pass to officials to explain some of the work that was done on developing an alternative private financing model.

You are right, five years is a long time. As I said, Scottish Futures Trust was involved. MIM was developed by the Welsh Government and has been adapted for use in Scotland. I do not just identify the ONS reclassification as the key issue; I also see that there were delays in statutory processes. I am happy to come on to why I think that that may have saved us some time in the end, by meaning that we had only one public inquiry, albeit I would prefer that those processes been quicker.

The new point that I want to make is that there was not a vacuum of work during that time. Work was progressing. The statutory processes work has been progressing to the point where we now have 92 per cent ministerial decisions in hand for those. We brought forward work on the Kincraig to Dalraddy route, which was completed in 2017. The additional section of Luncarty to the Pass of Birnam began in 2019 and was completed in 2021. Of course, work was on-going in the background to develop a new private finance model.

I do not know whether any of the team want to say something about that five-year period and why such work takes so long.

With all respect, I think that I have answered that question. I said that there has not been a formal internal review, but we review on an on-going basis what we think the reasons for delay are, as they emerge, and I have identified the two key ones that we attribute the delay to.