Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is there evidence that panels reduce the risk?

You said that we are where we are with the legislation, but 2019 was some time ago, and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge with progress on bus franchising around the UK, so there is now a lot more experience. If you were to revisit the provision through a transport act, would you go down the same route? Given what we know about Wales, is this the best route to go down to secure franchising?

My final question is about the guidance that could come on the back of this Scottish statutory instrument. You understand the concerns that have been raised in the petition to Parliament and I am sure that you have read the evidence and know of the experience elsewhere in the UK. What is your response to that? Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and others have a real stake and an interest in seeing this happen. What is your answer to them? How can you deliver reassurance right now through guidance or interpretation of the SSI?

I am trying to help you to find out what the solution is, because I want to see a solution, too. I want franchising to happen as quickly as possible. We are on the same page, but I am struggling to see what the fix is. I am frustrated for you, because a motion has been lodged to annul the regulations.

I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said. I do not think that amendment 62 contains anything that would require the Scottish Government to fully fund the Climate Change Committee. The amendment relates very much to the work that that committee does in relation to Scottish carbon budgets. It is important that the issue is continually raised. If that is done through interministerial forums, so be it. An understanding of our needs, of the issues that are emerging from deliberation on our climate change plan and the budget and of the CCC’s capacity to deliver on that need to be part of an active conversation.

I will consider whether it is worth revisiting amendment 62 ahead of stage 3, but I do not intend to press it at this point. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has, I think, acknowledged that this is an issue. I think that she has acknowledged that—I am not sure. [Interruption.] She has—right, okay.

I have just read out a list of specific ideas that will help Scotland to reduce its climate emissions.

If Mr Simpson wants to go for a full dualling of the A96, I suspect that that will result in enormous amounts of carbon emissions that will be locked in for decades ahead. I say to Mr Simpson and to other members in the chamber—if this Parliament wants to make such decisions, we have to live with the consequences; if we go for high-carbon infrastructure, it has a consequence, so we need to measure it and understand it. If members want to trade that off against emission reductions somewhere else in the economy, they can make that decision, but we have to operate within our carbon budget. I think that that is implicit within this bill.

The bill does not alter climate ambition, which will come through the setting of a carbon budget next year. However, it does offer the opportunity to learn lessons from the past five years, especially through the need to link action plans with financial budgets and the new carbon budgets. Aligning a five-year carbon budget with a clear and costed plan will, I hope, deliver honest and transparent consideration of what is actually needed on the ground to get to net zero. The evidence that was presented on that by the Scottish Fiscal Commission was important and I hope that the Government will consider giving it a formal role in the process.

If there is time in hand, I will certainly take the cabinet secretary’s intervention.

Looking back on that target, I accept that it seems that it would have been incredibly difficult to achieve, but that target was arrived at in the context of a debate about the climate science. As I said earlier, scientists such as Jim Skea said that even a 75 per cent target would give us only a chance of keeping global warming to 1.5°C. It was a debate about the science. I agree with Liam McArthur that we should also have had a debate about how we would get to the targets and what that would mean for society. I hope that that can now come through the new budgeting process.

It is clear that this climate bill must result in a reset of climate ambition. However, to achieve that, there must be a level of honesty about what getting to net zero actually means and what choices must be made.

Yes, the 2030 target was ambitious—it was on the edge of what the UK Climate Change Committee believed was achievable—but it was also necessary that this Parliament reflected what climate science demanded. Last week, Jim Skea, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said:

“We are potentially headed towards 3°C of global warming by 2100 if we carry on with the policies we have at the moment”.

Colleagues know that a rise of 3°C would be utterly devastating for all life on this planet.

Just six years ago, at the time that we set the 2030 target, Jim Skea said:

“Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes”.

Unprecedented changes were what young people around the world were demanding on the streets at the time that we set the 2030 target. They demanded that we keep 1.5°C alive; they demanded that we listen to the scientists and that we make the changes that remain so necessary today.

However, those unprecedented changes were not put forward by Government. The climate plan that came out in 2019 largely fudged the issue; it did not spell out the emissions reductions that could be achieved. Dozens of recommendations made by parliamentary committees to improve the plan were ignored, as were warnings from the Climate Change Committee to ramp up delivery. Quite simply, it was too little, too late.

It was obvious at the start of this session of Parliament that the 2030 target was starting to slip beyond reach. As this bill looks to reset how targets are measured and as plans are made, we cannot ignore the need for Government to take seriously the need for unprecedented action to tackle the climate emergency.

Action is what Greens need to see alongside this bill if we are to give the bill our full support. We are still waiting for a new energy strategy with a clear presumption against new oil and gas; we are still waiting for the plan to reduce car dependency; we are still waiting for more climate-compatible options for improving the A96; and we are still waiting for a decisive shift in subsidy to help farmers cut climate pollution.

Decisions on those policies and many more will either lock in or lock out climate pollution in the years ahead, but clarity is needed right now.

Absolutely, but the role of public investment in levering in responsible private investment is absolutely critical. We have seen that with the excellent work of my colleague Patrick Harvie on the heat in buildings strategy, which has a hybrid model of public and private investment to deliver that change. Cabinet secretary, it is the plans that we need to see.

Five-year carbon budgets linked to action are broadly welcome, but, if budgets are being blown, meaningful corrective action is important. We recently received two section 36 reports in the Parliament that were meant to spell out the action that the Government is taking to make up for missed climate targets. However, they did not offer new actions and they did not explain how restated policies would get us back on track. Clearly, the new legislation must put more of a requirement on such reports to spell out—urgently—how course correction could be achieved and to include the financial cost.

How we take the whole of society on this journey is really important. Scotland’s first climate assembly, which was mandated under the 2019 act, delivered much-needed and very honest conversations and made some critical recommendations to the Government, some of which were taken on and others that were not. I believe that the Government should consider embedding that approach to public participation in the new climate change bill.

Once again, we stand on the brink of disaster. The climate change bill will help us to learn lessons and will make improvements, but it will not move us to safety. That can come only from the Government redoubling its commitment to the unprecedented action that is demanded by the science, and it must deliver that alongside the bill.

Will the member give way?