Bob, sorry to interrupt. To clarify, cabinet secretary, you wrote to the committee on 20 September last year with the timescale. It would be helpful to have an amendment to the timings based on those that you gave us in that letter.

But that is the timeframe for this budget.

That is a logical place to take a five-minute break before we move to the next set of questions. I ask members to be back at 10:45. That is actually slightly less than five minutes, cabinet secretary, but there is a bit of leeway.

So, the free allocation could be recalculated. That is helpful to know. Does any other member of the committee have questions?

Nice try, Mr Lumsden, but that is probably as far as that is going to go.

Cabinet secretary, do you want to say anything briefly before we bring this session to a close?

We move straight on to agenda item 5, which does not involve you, cabinet secretary. You looked at me concerned, as if you were expecting—

Yesterday, the illegal release of two lynx south of Aviemore was spotted by local gamekeepers. Gamekeepers then worked with the police and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland to safely recapture the animals, which I am pleased to say are now safe in care.

Will the First Minister join me in condemning that illegal release and in thanking all those who were involved in the capture of the animals without harming them? Will he also ask the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands to meet me to discuss the genuine concerns that were caused for my constituents by what was a very serious wildlife crime?

I am pleased to contribute, on behalf of the NZET Committee, to the review of the national performance framework. We were tasked with scrutiny of two areas—the environment outcome and the new climate action outcome. Although we welcome the revisions, changing the words in a document takes us only so far, to be frank. There is a need to transform ambition into action.

The additional challenge is to take the public with us, otherwise change will not stick. Policies on the environment and net zero must be realistic, achievable and within a price range.

None of this is easy. However, it can be made easier if the public buy in on the basis that they will be the ones who make the positive changes. That was the key message of the people’s panel on climate change that the committee convened last year.

Let us begin with the environment outcome. The outcome focuses on protecting, restoring, enhancing and enjoying our natural environment. It now explicitly highlights the critical need for environmental restoration. The committee supports the updated definition, given the pressing reality of, and the need to resolve, our degrading ecosystems.

I note concerns from some stakeholders about what they see as gaps in the outcome. They have called for more express reference to matters such as water quality, biodiversity conservation, pollution control and sustainable land use. We asked the Scottish Government to consider those points before finalising the framework, and it has committed to doing so.

The Scottish Government referred to the recently published Scottish biodiversity strategy and the upcoming natural environment bill, some aspects of which I fear may fall within the committee’s remit. Although that shows a commitment to our natural environment, fine words butter no parsnips.

I turn to the climate action outcome, which aims to achieve a just transition to net zero while building resilience to climate change. That addition has been widely welcomed by stakeholders, and has been added to the framework to better align climate policy with the United Nations sustainable development goals. Scotland has ambitious emissions reduction targets, and we have highlighted the significant shortcomings in meeting those goals.

Progress needs to be more than changes in how targets are measured. It demands concrete actions that accelerate emissions reductions while supporting vulnerable populations in a fair transition. For instance, where are the Scottish Government’s highly ambitious plans to reduce car use per kilometre by 20 per cent between 2020 and 2030? Where are the Scottish Government’s policies to make that ambition a reality? What progress has been made so far?

The Scottish Government’s allocation of £4.9 billion in the 2025-26 budget for climate change initiatives is significant, but is that really enough to face the challenges? Previous budgets had gaps in critical areas including peatland restoration and woodland restoration, which are both essential for achieving our climate ambitions. Simply put, we need to back our words with sufficient funding that is targeted in the right way at the right areas.

For the national performance framework to succeed, the Government must make sure that it synchronises its goals with policies and funding. Although the committee welcomes the two reworded national outcomes that we have scrutinised, it is time—now more than ever—that the Government’s actions must speak louder than words.

How much heavier?

My final question is for Jim Anderson. I accept Kevin Stewart’s point that we have ended up with a better boat than we had before in terms of serving Arran. However, as I understand it, we now have a heavier ship that is carrying less cargo and fewer passengers—although it is able to carry more cargo and passengers than it normally does, but that would mean that it would sit deeper in the water, which would mean that it could not get into other harbours—and is using more fuel, with a greater carbon output. Is that an accurate summary, or have I got that wrong?