Seòmar agus comataidhean

But the market might make its decisions based on the fact that there are not many hydrogen refuelling stations at the moment. There are only three in Scotland, two of which are in Aberdeen and were out of action for a little bit. That in itself would have an impact, would it not?

Sorry. I think that you were cut off there.

Unless anybody else wants to come in on that, I will hand back to you, convener.

Actually, I wish you would because you said that your part was delivered—

We live in a world in which anti-climate change rhetoric is growing. Jess Pepper said earlier that she sees energy and excitement about change from people, but I do not see that, I have to say. I have been knocking on a lot of doors of late and it is not one of the top issues; it was probably higher up the agenda previously. Folk listening to this evidence session will probably be somewhat bamboozled by what has been said. Folk have asked for more detail about the plan itself because there are too many assumptions, and what about the what-ifs? Assumptions have to be built in. We have heard about flexibility and being adaptive; we have heard various things about what is missing and what should be in. However, folk do not want too many assumptions; they want more detail, so I wonder what people out there will think of that argument.

A lot of this is about delivery. Earlier, Professor Curran mentioned the flood risk management in Scotland arrangements for 2012 to 2016 and talked about how that was done, the project managers and the rest of it. When it comes to delivery, has that worked? I make a point about the flood risk at Whitesands in Dumfries—an area of Scotland that I do not know particularly well but which has featured in the Parliament quite a lot—because there has been no delivery, yet I am quite sure that it featured in your plan for flood risk management in Scotland.

Why have we had the argument around the plan today—on what is there, what is not there and what should be there—why have we not thought about the what-ifs, and why are we not talking more about delivery?

Can I come in on Professor Curran, convener?

I am playing devil’s advocate here, but I go back to the lack of delivery or folk not wanting a project to be delivered. You talked about the costs of inaction, but the people of Whitesands in Dumfries know that there is a flooding risk. They know the cost of inaction, yet many of them do not want that flood prevention scheme.

Lloyd Austin talked about the communications and not everything being monetary, but, for many folk at the moment, their lack of income and the struggle to pay electricity, gas and food bills is the top priority without a doubt. Money in their pooch is aa they think aboot.

I will come to Jess next.

You say that you are supportive of the plan—even though there has been a huge picking of holes in it in your evidence today—but you know what will be reported from this session today. Mr Austin has concentrated on agriculture. He basically wants everybody to eat less beef, other meat products and dairy. That will go down like a lead balloon with many folks, including many folks who cannot afford such things at the moment. There has been talk about a reduction in cars. I have no skin in the game—I am not a driver and never have been—but again that will be the thing that is reported. There will be the talk of putting in what folk see as very expensive heating solutions. Again, I have no skin in the game because I am already all electric, but you can see exactly where this goes.

In picking holes in the plan and not talking so much about the delivery that is required, each of you today has provided the headlines for the anti-climate change brigade, which has probably reduced energy and excitement among the folk who recognise that climate is an issue.

Andy Poole said that he was not quite convinced about some aspects of the Climate Change Committee position. I take it that the not convinced bit includes hydrogen. Other countries are looking at hydrogen for HGV use and say that it is much better than electric vehicles. Does that need more exploration in these islands, as is happening in China, Germany and the United States?

I recognise that the bit that you were responsible for was delivered, but the practicalities of flood defences and flood risk management have not been put in place due to arguments at lower levels. We are arguing today about a climate change plan, and the Scottish Government will not be responsible for the delivery of a huge amount of it, but we want all the detail of what the Scottish Government will not be responsible for.

Quite simply, this is about delivery. The Government can put together a plan that looks immense and entirely workable and that, perhaps, everybody could eventually agree on—although that is doubtful—but none of that works if there is no delivery. That is my point. We are arguing the semantics of all this, but delivery is key. Delivery is king or queen, is it not?

—but the reality on the ground for people who have faced flooding in various parts of the country is that it has made no difference; they are still being flooded.