Seòmar agus comataidhean

We seem to be in an almost legislatively surreal situation—a kind of back-to-front world—and it is difficult to make sense of that. The cabinet secretary said that there has been quite a solid and more rational conversation between Government departments at UK level and at Scottish Government level. I am interested to explore what a rational way forward might be, given that, regrettably, as you say, it looks like the bill will not be dropped. For example, is there a way to push the sunset clause back to 2026 and to consider laws in a more phased approach? Has there been any appetite from UK Government ministers to do that? Alternatively, is there a way in which we can fast-track the retention of EU law in the next 13 months?

It is useful to know how that is working out.

I want to ask about risk. We have heard evidence, which has been repeated today, on how laws are interrelated and interlinked. With food standards, for example, the cliff edge presents the threat that we default back to a time when there was no law—in effect, a lawless time. There is a lot of risk that Governments could be challenged and disastrous situations could occur that result in Governments having to fight legal battles for a long time on particular issues. How is that risk being assessed in the Scottish Government? Are teams of officials locked up having to look at the interrelated nature of laws and where there may be legal challenge in certain areas or particular risks to the public, as with food standards? How do you start to get a grip of that?

Last week, non-governmental organisations gave us a good example of invasive species legislation being split between UK and devolved Administrations.

My last question is about budgets. The UK Government has given you a challenging budget, and inevitably that will be putting substantial downward pressure on Government departments. What are the potential resourcing implications of the bill? You are still trying to work that out, I guess. We have heard about the impact on the programme for government and policy priorities, but what might the resourcing implications be?

Will you be dealing with the implications of the bill within your existing resource allocation? Will it just be part and parcel of the business of government in Scotland?

Earlier this year, I visited, with the cabinet secretary, Touch primary school, where we saw the pioneering neurodevelopmental pathway project that is being trialled by schools in the area. However, I am still hearing from families in Fife who are desperate for that kind of multi-agency support for their children to be rolled out further.

Has the pilot concluded, what findings were gleaned from the trial and does the Scottish Government have firm plans to roll out that type of programme to other areas across Scotland?

In the previous session of the Parliament, four parliamentary committees raised serious concerns that the climate change plan was not fit for purpose, so it was good to hear the CCC finally reflect many of those concerns in its report.

Undoubtedly, the new climate change plan must do better, so will the cabinet secretary accept that we urgently need to drive down the growth in aviation mileage and that no options should be off the table to do that?

I have a point of clarification. I am interested in the provision that allows, in effect, a free allocation under the emissions trading scheme if heat is going to another source so that, instead of heat being wasted, it is taken out of the industrial process and used somewhere else. Are there particular standards for that? Does the heat have to go to housing or to other industrial processes? Are there any criteria around that? I do not have any further comments on the SI beyond seeking that clarification, which it would be useful to receive in some form.

It is very welcome to see the on-going alignment with EU law. Stakeholder engagement was one of the issues raised in the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. Obviously, stakeholder engagement in Europe is extremely detailed throughout the policy development process and the development of regulations. Now that we are out of that system, minister, how have we attempted to replicate that stakeholder engagement at an appropriate level with the adoption of the regulations? Indeed, how are you involving stakeholders with regard to what might come forward through the directive over time that we might wish to align to? We have lost that architecture of really in-depth stakeholder engagement.

After COP27, the odds are now, sadly, stacked against keeping the world to 1.5° of heating. The UN secretary general described the latest IPCC report as an “atlas of human suffering”. This is what we now face; it is completely inevitable.

However, the threat should galvanise us, because, even if 1.5° is now dead, we must redouble our efforts to keep hope and progress alive. It will not be enough to have short-term technical decarbonisation plans that allow business as usual to simply continue. We need a revolution in our thinking, and we must look forward to future generations with every action that we take, because the footprints that we leave today will last for generations to come.

It is time to join the dots and see the connections in what is already happening to our world. Europe is currently heating at twice the rate of the rest of the planet, while the Arctic is heating three times faster. Every fraction of a degree of Arctic temperature increase has resulted in a more erratic polar jet stream, bringing heat waves, droughts, forest fires and excess deaths across Europe.

A melting Arctic permafrost could mean game over for this planet. If the tipping point is reached, 25 to 40 per cent of global carbon budgets could be blown by permafrost emissions alone. We are one people living on one planet with a shared history and a shared future, and what happens in the Arctic writes the future of a community in Bangladesh.

That is why it was so important that COP27 finally took a critical step forward towards climate reparations for nations that are at the front line of the crisis, with a dedicated fund established for loss and damage. However, as the conference came to a close, we saw the progress that was made in Glasgow start to wither away without delivering the necessary commitments on a phase-out from all fossil fuels.

Despite Alok Sharma’s leadership at COP26 and his calls for a phasing out of all fossil fuels, the Westminster Government has largely continued with business as usual. Despite continuing calls from the International Energy Agency for there to be

“no new investments in oil, gas and coal”,

we have seen a disastrous expansion of oil and gas licences in the North Sea and may even see permission being granted this week for a new mega coal mine in the north of England. We cannot drill our way out of either the energy cost crisis or the climate emergency; the answer to both of those is a rapid transition away from oil and gas that delivers for both workers and the planet.

COP26 showed us that, when they work together, small nations can lead the world on climate justice. That is exactly the message sent by the launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, when a flotilla of countries joined together to plan for a fair and fast phase-out of fossil fuels. Chile, Fiji, and Washington were among the newest members to join the alliance and commit to fossil fuel phase-out dates at COP27. I expect that this Government’s programme of work to understand our energy requirements in Scotland will lead to us joining that growing network of climate leaders.

It is also crucial that the Scottish Government continues dialogue with Westminster about joining international calls for collective withdrawal from the Energy Charter treaty, which is now beyond reform. Fossil fuel companies should not be allowed to sue Governments for hundreds of millions of pounds if they introduce policies that limit the use of coal, oil and gas in line with our climate ambitions.

If I have time in hand.