Seòmar agus comataidhean

So why not just reveal that?

Indeed.

Obviously, where we are is really disappointing. The 2030 and 2040 targets are being dropped and we are moving to a new system of budgeting. What are the top-line lessons that the Government should learn from the past five years? Mike Robinson spoke about the level of action planning. I know that ESS has done a number of reports that have held the Government to account over the production of climate change plans. We have also had a long-running discussion between the Parliament and the Government on financial budgets, a net zero test and the need to embed climate change thinking in the work of Government.

From each of your perspectives, will you nail down what you think the central lesson is from the past five years? How do we now get on track for 2045 or even earlier?

Mike, do you want to start?

I will try to beat that.

Cabinet secretary, when you talked earlier about the net zero assessment work that is going on within Government—that is, the net zero test of all Government spending—you said that it is still at the pilot stage. It seems to me that it needs to go way beyond the pilot stage if it is to deliver the level of transparency that we might get through climate change plans linked to budgets—and to carbon budgets, too.

I am going to get a short answer to this question—

So, every Government department will be using this approach by next year.

I have a question on the five years since the setting of the 2030 target and where we are now. We have rehearsed some of this in the chamber in relation to where the Government could have gone faster or where the UK Government was, arguably, limiting ambition. You could make that point, but I am after an honest reflection from you, on behalf of the Government, on areas where you think you could have gone a lot faster.

You had the advice from the Climate Change Committee in 2021 that the target remained difficult to meet. However, there were areas in which the CCC was calling for the Government to really accelerate action, such as home heating. With hindsight, in which areas could progress have been made? What lessons does that provide for the next five years and for what goes in the next climate change plan? Where should we really be ramping up action in a way that we perhaps did not five years ago?

My final question is about the section 36 report, which a number of witnesses have mentioned. Last week, two catch-up reports in relation to two years of failed targets came out.

We are going to need to do a lot of scrutiny of the budgets. We have had catch-up reports, but do witnesses have thoughts on the level of detail that was presented to Parliament? Did it address some of the concerns that SCCS, ESS and others have had about the lack of action that led to those failed targets?

This is the second time in three years that workers at the Methil yard have faced a very uncertain future. The yard at Methil was previously on a long list for a portion of the £500 million investment in Scotland’s offshore wind supply chain. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the Government has explored all options to lock Methil yard into that supply chain for the future? Can she also give a commitment that any investments that come through the green freeport will not undermine the case for investment at Methil but will work alongside it to strengthen the supply chain that we need to grow in the east of Scotland?

I will address Christine Grahame’s comment first. This is a bit of a frustrating debate, because we always talk about peak fares and higher prices to manage demand on the railways, but we never talk about peak pricing on the roads. We never talk about putting in road charges to manage demand during periods of congestion—which, of course, could then be used to invest in public transport and in our road infrastructure.

The greyhound racing industry’s governing body recorded that more than 100 dogs died and more than 4,000 were injured while racing at regulated tracks in England and Wales last year. Does the minister recognise that the nature of that activity, with dogs running against each other at speeds of up to 40mph around sharp bends, leads to a similar rate of collision at any track, regardless of whether it be in Newcastle or Fife?

I welcome the fact that the Tories have chosen the cream of the crop of Scottish Green policies to champion in the chamber. Whether that is just blatant opportunism or a stumble towards one-nation Conservatism, I do not know. However, it is clear that the Tories have noticed the popularity of removing extortionate and confusing peak rail fares.

The Scottish Greens listened to rail unions and championed the scrapping of peak fares when we were in government. Rail union members work with passengers every day, so they know how the railway works, how ludicrously complex the fare system is and how it puts off passengers. The RMT has called the decision to reintroduce peak fares “a retrograde step”. ASLEF said that the decision was “a disaster” for workers. I whole-heartedly agree with the STUC, which said:

“Peak fares are a stealth tax on workers which is bad for the climate, bad for our communities and bad for people’s wallets.”

Public transport is a common good. It is at the heart of everyday life. How we get to work and access learning, how we visit our family and friends and how we engage with our communities delivers tangible positive benefits for all. If the Government is serious about its commitments to cutting emissions from the 5 billion car journeys that are made in Scotland every year and to transforming the way that people travel, we need radical investment into making bus, tram and train travel cheaper and easier than taking the car. A robust route map for reducing car kilometres by 20 per cent by 2030 will be vital to that, and I look forward to the cabinet secretary producing that soon.

Nearly 750,000 young people in Scotland now have access to free bus travel, and more than 150 million such journeys have been made in just over two years. The national entitlement card for bus travel goes further than that by offering young people 50 per cent off their train fares, so we are already creating a generation whose first choice is public transport.

However, I say to the cabinet secretary that it takes time to change behaviour. The off-peak fares trial led to an extra 4 million journeys over nine months, and half of them would have been made by car previously. It did not pass the success threshold that the Government set of a 10 per cent increase in journeys, but people take time and need certainty to make changes to their lives. At the end of this month, the only certainty will be that fares will dramatically increase on many rail services.