Chamber and committees

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?

So, job titles are less important, but action is critical. Will there be a natural environment bill in this parliamentary session?

Through the Bute house agreement, there was certainty that, in this session of Parliament, there would be a natural environment bill and a heat in buildings bill. Do you understand the fact that there is now a lot of uncertainty among environmental non-governmental organisations and the general public about whether the action to tackle the climate crisis and the nature emergency will be followed through in this session of Parliament?

Yes, it was in relation to those questions.

I appreciate that.

Access to environmental justice is critical. It is a really hard-won and hard-fought-for right that communities around the world have struggled to achieve and to get commitments to from Governments. That access is enshrined in the Aarhus convention, which brought together parties internationally to agree those environmental rights.

It is very concerning that the Scottish Government is not in compliance with Aarhus. I know there is going to be another review of the situation in October, but on the back of your answers today, it seems that Scotland will remain out of compliance with Aarhus, and will remain, therefore, in a position in which citizens are going to struggle to get access to environmental justice. Does that concern you?

Those are your views on the process, not on the merit or otherwise of decisions. If the view of those who oversee the Aarhus convention in October is that Scotland is still not in compliance with it, will the Government take action, or do you believe, as you just said, that the balance is right and what we are doing is fine?

Is it possible that the climate science may say that we need to meet net zero before 2045?