That might be of some comfort to my successor, whoever that may be.

Mark, I think that you have some questions.

Our second item is an evidence session on two consent notifications relating to proposed United Kingdom statutory instruments: the Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 and the REACH (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2026.

I welcome to the meeting Gillian Martin, Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, and her supporting officials from the Scottish Government: Dan Merckel, chemicals team leader; Lucy Drummie, lawyer; and Greig Walker, project lead.

We will take evidence on both instruments under this agenda item before discussing whether we are content for consent to be given under two separate agenda items: items 3 and 4. Cabinet secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement?

That is helpful, and we can certainly highlight our concerns about the regulations. The problem is that we have to make a decision on the SI today that will allow the Scottish Government to consent, and I think that that has to be done by somewhere around 20 February—I apologise if I have not got the date quite right—so that the UK Government can decide on it and move forward.

In relation to Mark Ruskell’s concerns, it might be that the subsequent committee should consider the recommendation that the HSE be brought before it.

Okay. That is helpful. We can just go straight to a decision. As much as I dislike seeing the committee divided, I do not think that there is any way round it.

The substantive question is, that the committee is content that the provision set out in the notification be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument, which is the Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. Are we agreed?

We are not agreed.

I just want to clarify this. You are not going to agree to the proposal at all, Mark, but are we in a position to say that the committee is not agreed, with one member objecting—which we would have to say—and that we would like further details to be made available at a later date, when the HSE has made its consultation public to any subsequent committee? Would that be sufficient? I am looking at the clerks.

I have to ask, Mark: are you objecting in principle, or would you rather that the Scottish Government did that?

Item 5 is an evidence session on the Scottish Government’s draft climate change plan, which sets out how the Government intends to meet its carbon emissions reduction targets. The committee is leading a cross-committee effort to scrutinise the draft plan. The Government has said that it will lay a final plan by the end of March.

This will be our final evidence session on the plan. We will explore key themes that have been identified throughout this committee’s scrutiny, as well as issues raised by other committees. It is also an opportunity to explore the two main parts of the plan that are in the cabinet secretary’s remit: energy supply and waste.

I welcome back to the meeting Gillian Martin, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy. I also welcome her supporting Scottish Government officials: Philip Raines, who is the deputy director for domestic climate change, and Edward McHardy, who is an economic advisor. Thank you for attending. Cabinet secretary, I think that you are going to make a brief opening statement.

Okay. It is just that, when I look at it, I am struggling to understand. Last week, I particularly asked questions of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, and she was unable to answer the questions on the figures, which we will come to at a later stage. If we look at page 67 of annex 3, it is accepted that all the figures are provisional, because there are no details there. Would that be Mairi Gougeon’s fault? Is it attributable to her that the figures have to be provisional, or is that attributable to you, because you do not have the details? I am trying to work out where the responsibility is.

09:30

I am sure that we will come back to costs later in the session, but we have repeatedly heard in the evidence that the draft climate change plan lacks specific detail and is failing to deliver at the required scale and pace. How will you ensure that the final climate change plan, when it is laid, is clearer and more open about the specifics of who, what, when, where, how and at what cost? At the moment, you are accepting that the cost is a bit “stick your finger in the air and see what happens”.

Thank you. I gently remind you, cabinet secretary, that the committee wrote to you to ask for any updates that came about as a result of the consultation. We are particularly pushed for time to get our report completed before the end of February, so that it can be debated in the Parliament in early March. We asked for early sight of those updates, so I remind you that that letter is there.

It is also disappointing that we cannot have a public evidence session with the Climate Change Committee until after we have reported, but that is the way it is.

Kevin Stewart has some questions.

Sorry, I will just come in. The deputy convener has raised some of the points that I raised earlier. We are asking people over the next 25 years to make huge changes to their lifestyle and to make huge contributions towards the ability of the UK to reach net zero by 2050 and of Scotland to reach net zero by 2045. Showing your workings would give them confidence in the Government’s plan.

We used to have a saying when it came to costs: “scientifically wildly assessed guess”. I think that there was another word in there, too. We cannot see the workings; we do not understand them. Therefore, to pick up on the deputy convener’s point, although providing that information might not be required, it would give credence to what you are trying to achieve. That is the point.