Chamber and committees

I am afraid that I do not have time—I have only four minutes.

The heat in buildings bill, which is already wildly overdue, has only a few months left to pass through Parliament. To me, that confirms the suspicion that the Government has filleted it of any serious delivery mechanisms. The Scottish policy landscape, including on climate, is littered with targets that were introduced with no mechanism to deliver. It now seems clear that the Government intends to do the same again on clean heat. The Government is also rejecting the advice of the UK Climate Change Committee on how to cut agriculture emissions.

So far, there is no indication of any alternative actions that can compensate for the watered-down climate change policies in those three key areas. The Greens recognise that carbon budgets must be set if we are to see a new climate change plan come forward. That plan is urgent—after all, it is actions that cut emissions, not targets or budgets. Therefore, we will not oppose the carbon budgets, but it seems clear that, instead of accelerating action, the SNP is slowing down in key areas. I cannot begin to see how any climate plan that it produces in those circumstances can get Scotland back on track in cutting emissions.

I expect the SNP to go into next year’s election with a lacklustre plan. Instead of asking voters to compare that plan to what the science demands, the SNP will ask for a comparison with the increasingly denialist and defeatist stance on the political right. The Greens, meanwhile, will continue to bring forward the bold actions that are necessary to bring down emissions fast and achieve the healthier, fairer and more equal society that we know is possible.

Will the member give way?

I will start by reflecting on where we are in this journey. We have already used up nearly half the time from the first climate act to the 2045 target. In that time, we have fallen behind schedule, with a series of missed targets. The only rational response to falling behind schedule is to speed up, yet some people seem determined to advocate the very opposite.

The easy bit has been done already; from here on, it gets harder, and we have long known that that was going to be the case. It is not just technically harder; it is politically harder, too. That is shown by the way that the political parties of the increasingly extreme right are breaking the consensus and dropping support for any credible climate policy. It is also shown by the lack of urgency that we are seeing from the SNP.

Four years ago, the Greens agreed to join the Government, and a large part of our motivation in doing so was to restore that urgency, especially in three key areas that have not seen enough progress. One is cutting road traffic, which the Scottish Government knows needs to happen to address climate change and to cut local air pollution. Another is pressing ahead with a credible programme on clean heating, which is an area where the policy experts had previously been held back by the politicians, despite the unarguable need to decarbonise by ditching fossil fuel heating. Finally, on land use, a change in the nature of subsidy and support offers opportunities for reduced emissions and strong rural economies, meeting the need for healthier diets.

Now, however, on all three of those key issues, far from accelerating action to make up for lost ground, the SNP is slowing down. A 20 per cent target to cut car traffic has been dropped—not revised, as the Government originally announced, as there has been no replacement for that target.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Perhaps that is one reason why we are not seeing the investment in the clean heat sector that we could be seeing if the Government was giving crystal clarity. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the criticisms that have been made this evening are about not only process, but substance? The very areas in which the new climate plan needs to accelerate action are those areas in which the SNP has been slowing down, watering down, diluting and delaying.

Good morning. I will follow up on the same themes. I have come to the inquiry quite aware of how much I do not know about this topic. I have been trying to read as much as I can from the evidence that has been submitted. However, I do not know whether the severe delay in getting a diagnosis is purely down to capacity, or is the result of people wanting a diagnosis where the criteria are marginal, the judgement is difficult and they have to be seen many times, or whether it is purely down to the variation in practice in different health boards.

We are being told by a great many people that diagnosis is an extremely important part of not just understanding their own experience but addressing it. I do not know whether diagnosis is clinically necessary. We have been told that these are not disorders, diseases or things to be cured in any sense, but normal diversity. Is diagnosis clinically necessary or is it merely that support is not available without it, so it is therefore a necessary hoop to jump through, rather than clinically required? Can you answer those questions? The evidence that we have seen so far leaves me none the wiser.

Forgive me, but I am aware that we are short of time. I do not mean to push back too strongly, but it feels as though you are describing the current state of affairs rather than a path forward. Is there a potential for a change that GPs would accept and would result in there being a consistent approach to dealing with those who have perhaps gone to the voluntary sector, and a clear sense of what standard would require to be met in order to have acceptance by GPs in a more consistent way?

Does anyone else want to come in and react to what we have heard on that idea of building on good practice? Is that a reasonable phrase to use when practice is so widely varied? Some health boards simply do not provide adult assessments at all, for example, whereas others do.

Were you looking to come back in, Dr Malone?

Absolutely.