Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. I want to ask Cornilius Chikwama about Audit Scotland’s view on where the Scottish Government is. Audit Scotland produced a report some time ago that looked at the need for effective assurance, enhanced governance and workforce planning within the director general for net zero’s area. This meeting is an opportunity to reflect on whether governance is set up correctly in relation to the bill. Does Audit Scotland have concerns about progress in that regard, or are you content with the fact that the Government is taking on the reforms that you have highlighted?

I am sure that both the minister and Jenny Gilruth are aware of the Fife neurodevelopmental assessment pathway project, which is a multi-agency approach that enables children and families to get the support that they need while they are waiting for an assessment.

When I visited a Fife school that was involved in the pilot, a couple of years ago, it was clear that that was transforming the learning environment for young people and helping neurodiverse children to unlock their potential. Has the Government reviewed the impacts of that pilot? What consideration is being given to rolling out that type of approach in other parts of Scotland?

I thank Lorna Slater for giving us the opportunity to have some fun with the buttons in the chamber and to reflect on those momentous times 10 years ago.

I was a yes activist in Stirling and a local Green councillor at the time. I will never forget seeing 16-year-olds in their school uniform turning up, class by class, to vote in that referendum. It was an incredible time of political empowerment. Emma Roddick reflected that it was perhaps one of the first times when she felt that her voice mattered politically. Oh, their voices did matter so much. It is a delight to see so many of those yes activists now taking seats in our local government and in this Parliament, and I hope that many more will take their own seats in the years to come.

I remember some great days, knocking on doors in the Raploch in Stirling. It was barbecue weather and folks—friends, family and neighbours—were out in their front yards and having a really good debate and natter about all the issues that were relevant to the referendum, from pensions to Trident. That was in a community that, historically, had had an incredibly low turnout at every single election, so to see that empowerment and to be part of that conversation was fantastic. I learned when to shut up sometimes, too, but it was wonderful.

That stands in contrast to what we saw a couple of years after that with the referendum to decide our future in the European Union, which was tarnished by the lies of the leave campaign and was built on ignorance. If I have one personal regret in politics, it is that I probably did not spend anything like as much time as I would have liked knocking on doors and talking to people about the benefits of the European Union and our role in that European family of nations. Due to the timing—it was so close after the Holyrood elections—I did not spend that time. I really regret that, because I wanted to bring the spirit of the independence referendum into the question whether we should remain in the European Union.

What is absolutely clear is that Brexit has been an utter disaster. We live in a world that is more interdependent than ever. We live in a world in which states need to show solidarity with each other, whether on tackling the climate crisis, delivering global security or delivering shared prosperity. However, that is not incompatible with independence. In fact, membership of the European Union requires independence. It requires sovereign states to join, work together and flourish. If members have any doubt about that, they should go to Ireland and see a flourishing and independent nation that is doing just that within the European Union.

When I see the sort of poll results that came out this week showing that 56 per cent of Scots want an independent Scotland within the European Union, my heart fills with hope for the future. Back in 2014, when I went to vote yes for an independent Scotland, I took my eight-year-old son with me. I took a huge amount of pride in voting yes and had a huge amount of hope for his future. Now, my hope is that, now that he has grown up and is a man, he will have the opportunity to make his own choice for the future of this country. I hope that, along with the majority of Scots, he will vote for an independent Scotland in the European Union.

We know and acknowledge that community-based, trauma-informed facilities are key to breaking those cycles of pain and reoffending and that that remains at the heart of the new facility at HMP Stirling and the excellent work that goes on there.

That said, this recent report from the inspectorate confirmed what my constituents have been saying for over a year, which is that major design flaws at HMP Stirling have caused protracted issues with noise that have been distressing for people living both inside and outside the prison. Can the cabinet secretary update me on what lessons have been learned to ensure that future facilities do not have the same mistakes built into them? Can she assure me that the SPS will provide a clear timeline on the delivery of noise mitigation measures at HMP Stirling as soon as possible?

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Scottish Prison Service to discuss the findings of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland’s report on the full inspection of HMP and YOI Stirling. (S6O-03727)

I am wondering where the big mystery is with the climate change plan. The UK Climate Change Committee has given the Government advice for a number of years. It has set out what the pathway to 2045 looks like. You have had annual advice from the UK CCC. What it will present next spring will not focus primarily on the next climate change plan but on the plans to follow on the route to 2045. What is the gap? What is the big mystery? Surely the Government must have already mapped out the pathway towards the next target and the next budget. It will have a clear idea about what actions are needed in particular sectors, from transport to agriculture to energy. As you say, none of that is a mystery.

Given that this is a living document—a living piece of work in Government—why can it not be shared with the committee ahead of our effectively changing the legislation, ditching the 2030 and 2040 targets and moving to a completely new system of budget setting? Why can that not be revealed? What is the big mystery here?

I am seeing nods. Would anybody like to elaborate on that?

No—the evidence has been excellent.

We had evidence last week from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which pointed to the need to line up the financial budgets with the action plans and the technical pathway that has been set out by the CCC. Do you think that there has been a real disconnect between action and budget over the past five years?

But you already said in your opening statement that, in order to meet the 2030 target, you would have had to adopt some policies that were neither fair nor just. Therefore, you have already made decisions about what you, as a Government, consider to be beyond the pale and undeliverable. Now that those have been junked and are no longer part of your thinking on the climate change plan, you must have a pretty tight set of actions that you think are deliverable and which you could share with the committee now, so that we can assess whether they are appropriate.