Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am really short of time, but I will take Brian Whittle’s intervention.

We already have more oil and gas in the North Sea than we can afford to burn. If we look at the response of Governments across Europe, we see that they are recognising that their dependence on oil and gas is a problem. They are not looking for other sources; they are looking to reduce their dependence on oil and gas for the sake of the climate and for energy security.

In recent months, there has been a rejection of a windfall tax in the United Kingdom, even though oil and gas companies in the North Sea are making £44,000 in profits a second. The very companies that have benefited from billions of tax subsidies in previous years are now looking to deepen our dependence on oil and gas while ordinary people shiver in fuel poverty.

Last week, we had the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which was described as an “atlas of human suffering” by the secretary general of the UN. That is exactly where we are heading unless we can decisively turn the corner now.

To stop the Glasgow agreement withering away, we need more progress on finance from the UK presidency. So far, the $100 billion fund for loss and damage that was first floated at Paris remains undelivered. That is a stain on all our consciences, and I hope that the first COP to be held in Africa will focus the agenda on how we repay our debt.

There is much in the Scottish Government’s climate programmes that has already put us on a faster route to net zero, pushing beyond the UK Climate Change Committee’s pathways, from an ambitious heat in buildings strategy to reducing vehicle mileage, a surge in tree planting and wind power targets. The challenge for the Scottish Government now is to flesh out the detail of programme delivery and financing, which is a point that Dean Lockhart made.

Let me make it clear—I agree with Monica Lennon on this—that there are no comfort zones for any Government to sit in. The UK CCC and Scotland’s Climate Assembly have both highlighted areas for faster and more radical change, including in the areas of aviation, peatland restoration and diet change. The Climate Assembly in particular has given the Scottish Government a mandate to go further and ministers should grasp that. The introduction of carbon food labelling, an action plan for reducing air miles and stronger support for peatland restoration and blue carbon are all needed. However, it is clear that business as usual will lead us down a road of no return. It is the Parliament’s job to challenge Governments to get on the best pathway to real zero and I look forward to working with the NZET Committee on that mission.

I, too, extend my deepest sympathies to the loved ones of the people whose lives were cut short by the tragedy.

The minister mentioned climate adaptation. Will she expand on how capital investment will help such adaptation? Will she also expand on the training and support for rail workers to operate modern forecasting systems to enable us to better track and understand how extreme weather events unfold in real time?

Today’s announcement from the United Kingdom Government on the Ukrainian humanitarian scheme is significant, but I agree with the First Minister that it does not go far enough. Ukrainian seasonal workers across Scotland, many of whom are my constituents in Fife, are still barred from bringing their family members to safety and still subject to the abhorrent no recourse to public funds conditions. What further support and assistance can the Scottish Government provide to Ukrainian seasonal workers who are still at the harsh end of the UK Government’s hostile environment?

I thank the member for giving way. I recognise that he is passionate about reducing food waste, but would he also reflect on the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations that we need a 20 per cent reduction in meat and dairy consumption in order to have any chance of meeting our climate targets? That seems to be a real elephant in the room.

We have talked a lot about a national conversation and have highlighted particular strands of that conversation, such as the ticket office closure consultation, the first complete national timetable review in Scotland in, I think, 30 years and a welcome focus on women’s safety. How do our witnesses see a national conversation going forward? We have heard mention of having passenger representation on the board or some kind of focus on that. However, is there a wide way of doing things? For example, could we have a kind of citizens assembly on ScotRail? Should we have more regular and involved discussions about services at a community level? We are in quite a participatory democracy, but I am not seeing that read across into some of the discussions about the future of ScotRail. It all seems to be quite disjointed.

Does Mick Hogg, or anyone else, have views on that?

Later this week, we will finally get the report into the tragedy at Carmont, near Stonehaven. I do not want to pre-empt the detailed findings of that report, but do you have any broad recommendations about dealing with the two issues of climate adaptation on the rail network and how we ensure that services on the network are safe, and how franchises and the operator of last resort should be run? Are there any lessons in relation to rolling stock or safety that need to be brought into the discussion? You have all mentioned safety as a top issue in getting people back on to the railways. Do you have any thoughts on that?

I work with a number of communities that are building up business cases for line reinstatements or bringing back stations on existing lines. They have been successful in getting money from the local rail development fund to do that. Those communities are concerned about the escalating costs of reopening railways and of capital projects on the rail network.

Michael Clark, why have we seen cost estimates, particularly for station reopening, double in recent years? I do not see where the additional costs are coming from.

Across Europe, Governments are waking up to the fact that we must end our dependency on oil and gas in order to create a safe and secure world. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the UK Tory Government needs to invest urgently in renewables and insulation instead of listening to the likes of Liam Kerr and Nigel Farage, who would rather plunge households into poverty and lock us into a future of volatile gas prices and climate breakdown?