Chamber and committees

That happens in life; I am not blaming schools for doing that.

I will take an intervention.

I saw only Mr Lumsden.

I am delighted to take part in this debate as a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and to talk about our stage 1 report on the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill.

First, I thank the clerks for all their hard work in completing the stage 1 report so quickly and the witnesses who give up their valuable time to respond to the call for views, to write to the committee and to attend meetings to give evidence. I also, of course, thank my fellow committee members for the way in which the process was conducted.

Scrutinising the bill has reminded me that what is exciting and what is important are not always the same thing in politics. Some folk might not think that changing how we set emissions reduction targets is exciting, but that is important work and this is an important bill.

The first recommendation in the committee’s report includes a line that I will repeat, because it goes straight to the principle of the bill:

“The Committee accepts that a framework based on carbon budgeting is a better and more flexible system for setting targets for emission reductions than the current approach.”

The move to carbon budgets is the crux of the bill, which proposes a shift from annual and interim targets to a more flexible and effective carbon budgeting system. I absolutely agree with that statement.

The system that we are looking to replace can end up with annual targets being missed or achieved because of how cold or mild a winter we have, and it can leave our nation’s progress being judged purely in the light of the politics of the day in this chamber, rather than being based on science, evidence and the advice that is given by experts.

That said, and as the report notes, the current concept of emissions reductions and the associated targets are simpler to understand. It is much easier to say what our carbon emissions were in 1990 and what they are in 2024 than it is to talk about remaining carbon budgets. However, using carbon budgets allows for an averaging out of our carbon footprint, so that we will not exceed our target in a year with a mild winter but then miss it completely the following year if the whole winter is pure baltic.

I highlight that there is still a credible path towards achieving the biggest target of all: reaching net zero by 2045. I remind folk that we talk about “net zero”, not “zero”, carbon emissions, because carbon can be captured as well as emitted. Our planet, mainly because of carbon sinks such as our oceans, our rainforests and other woodland, can remove some CO₂ from our atmosphere.

Over and above that, there is some scope for engineered processes, and I would not be doing my job as a north-east MSP if I did not mention the Acorn project, which, by 2030, could result in up to 10 million tonnes of CO₂ being captured every year, safeguarding thousands of jobs and contributing billions of pounds to the economy in the process. I am still amazed that the project was not awarded track 1 status by the previous UK Government, and I was even more amazed that, when the UK’s new Labour Government announced £22 billion of carbon capture funding last week, the Acorn project did not even get a mention.

That is a question for the Scottish Government, but if only the previous UK Government had given the same amount of money for a just transition, we might be in a better place.

It is all well and good to talk about targets, but giving the Acorn project the go-ahead would have been a huge step towards meeting those targets, however they are measured. We will not reach net zero without investment.

The bill has been expedited, and some have said that the Scottish Government could have done more, but I fail to see how. The cabinet secretary announced on 18 April that the bill would be brought to the Parliament before the summer recess. However, just five weeks later, a UK election was called and we entered purdah, which shortened the period that we had for scrutiny. That seems to have been a matter of some contention, but if Opposition members want to water down the restrictions of purdah, I guess that it could make the next election really interesting.

As we consider Scotland’s journey to net zero, I remind everyone that it is a global challenge and that many folk around the world are looking to Scotland to see what we are doing. I am pleased that the committee supports the bill’s general principles. We need to get on with it, get the bill in place, get to our targets and get to net zero.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement. She stated that the average length of prison sentences has increased by 32 per cent. Does that increase apply to long-term sentences or has there been an increase in short-term sentences, including in those of under one year?

I am pleased that the Lord Advocate made it clear that changes to the guidelines will not apply to domestic abuse cases. Can she provide reassurance that that message will be effectively communicated to victims and their support agencies?

With that in mind, what kind of feedback has been coming back from them? I understand that it is an unsettling time, but has the feedback been positive, or have concerns been raised?

You just pinched my question.

That is because George Adam is after me this time, convener. [Laughter.]

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Going back to the transition to the new bodies, can you tell us about the Government’s engagement with the staff of the current national bodies in the process of transitioning over to the new structures? How is that going?