Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks, convener. The Bute house agreement provided the Government with a majority to drive through work in a number of areas of climate action, regardless of whether you see those as low-hanging fruit. You mentioned the reforms that are needed to empower householders to improve their homes so that they are low-carbon, cosy, cheap to heat and future proofed. What certainty can we get at this point about the introduction of the heat in buildings bill?

If there were no heat in buildings bill, would that make it incredibly difficult to meet any climate target or five-year budget—or whatever you want to put in place?

I could ask about lots of aspects of the Bute house agreement, but of particular interest to the committee is the proposed natural environment bill, which is critical to tackling the nature emergency. Related to that is the change in ministerial responsibilities. We no longer have a minister with biodiversity as a headline responsibility in their job title.

Can you speak to us about the natural environment bill and where biodiversity sits? It is clearly not one of the four key priorities for the Government, but will you articulate where it now sits within Government, who is responsible for the bill and what priority it has?

Do you think that there is potentially a pathway to meeting net zero before 2045, in terms of the action that is required?

I will comment very briefly, convener. I thank Maurice Golden for acknowledging Lorna Slater’s work in commissioning the review on incineration. That came on the back of a lot of cross-party frustration that, about five or six years ago, the Government did not have a handle on what was coming in terms of incinerators and what the demand was in Scotland, given that they have a role but it is very much at the bottom of the waste hierarchy rather than the top. More planning on infrastructure is needed.

I would be interested to hear the minister’s response to the amendment, because I am sympathetic to legislating for something in that space in the bill. I am not sure whether it should be in the exact form of words that we are considering at stage 2, so I will listen to the minister’s view on that. If it is not, something could be proposed at stage 3 that is perhaps a little bit more elegant and gives a little bit more flexibility for the Government to respond.

The basic point is that we absolutely need to be planning for the future in terms of waste and energy.

You mentioned materials recovery from disposable nappies as being something that could be done in a nationwide facility. Could you reflect on the facility in Fife that was developed to deal with soft plastics—the kind of plastic films that are extremely difficult to recycle and reuse? The facility was developed on the back of a contract with Fife Council, but it perhaps did not receive the scale of material that it would if it were working on a national basis. Perhaps that is another example of a situation in which it might be useful to have a report that looks at the national infrastructure that is required for a problem that all local authorities have, as well providing a more detailed regional consideration of AD and other facilities that councils could collaborate on.

I return to 2019, the setting of the target and the aftermath of that. You say that the advice of the Climate Change Committee was to go for a lower target, but, in 2020, it wrote to Roseanna Cunningham, who was the cabinet secretary at the time, and said that, although it would be “extremely challenging” to meet the 2030 target, it did not recommend changing it. Indeed, the CCC pointed to a number of areas in which it was looking for accelerated action from the Government. Those were an

“Earlier start to engineered greenhouse gas removals ... Early decarbonisation of the Grangemouth cluster ... Accelerated scrappage of high-carbon assets”

and

“Additional retrofit of hybrid heat pumps.”

In retrospect, what lessons has the Government learned from the setting of the climate change plan that followed the 75 per cent target? It appears that, in 2020, you had strong warnings from the Climate Change Committee about where ambition and action needed to be ramped up, but that did not appear in the climate change plan.

You point to a number of areas where dependencies on the UK Government exist; indeed, we need to understand how much they continue to limit our ability to meet the 75 per cent target. However, there are areas, such as heat pumps, that the Climate Change Committee pointed out as areas for action back in 2020. We have only just gotten proposals for a heat in buildings bill, regulations and an action plan on heat in buildings. It has taken the best part of four or five years to get to a point where a plan is in place for that, and we do not yet have a plan for the decarbonisation of the Grangemouth cluster.

You are now the cabinet secretary in post; this is a different Government now. What can be learned in order to ramp up action? We have seen a failure to deliver action from the climate change plan. Although it was, I believe, cross-party committees of this Parliament that pointed to well over 160 recommendations for improvement on the back of the climate change plan, I do not think that the Government took on board all those concerns.

We are now left with a deficit of action, which will remain, regardless of what the target is set at or whether we move towards a five-year carbon budget. Low-hanging fruit is still sitting there, waiting for action, and we are not seeing progress at a sufficient enough scale.

It is not for the CCC to advise on all aspects of climate science; its role is to give advice to Governments about pathways to meet the targets that have been agreed. The 75 per cent target gave us only a 50 per cent chance of hitting the target of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees if there was similar action across the world to meet emissions reduction targets.

The climate science is quite clear: we are struggling. Ideally, we need to go a lot faster and further on carbon reduction, but doing so has butted up against political realities and the powers of the Government. What have you learned from that? There is a moral imperative to keep the 75 per cent target in place and to go faster and further, but clearly, for a range of reasons, the Government has struggled to get close to that. What have you learned about what is an acceptable pathway forward, and how can we balance that against the moral imperative that still exists?

Okay, but the intention is still to introduce that bill. Is that correct?