Chamber and committees

There are two things there. There is your final point about how the industry reacts to this and the adaptations that it might want to make, which is an important aspect, but there is also the point about how we are monitoring.

My marine directorate is working with the JNCC and NatureScot. In particular, if you look at the JNCC’s report, you will see all the references at the back as to where it got the evidence and the data to support its findings. It is using all the most up-to-date evidence and that evidence will be coming not just from the scientific community but from the fishing industry. It will be reaching out. It will be getting assessments on fish stocks and it will be getting vessel monitoring system data, presumably.

Again, these are questions mainly for the JNCC and NatureScot about what their sources are, but they are using the most up-to-date evidence from our universities, from industry, as I say, and from scientific papers. Scottish universities, in particular, are really good on this. Of course, they are also using data associated with the vessels that we have in Marine Scotland. In inshore areas we have the mandatory remote electronic monitoring cameras on the fishing fleet and there are a number of them in smaller vessels in the offshore area.

I could get John Mouat to give you a little bit more detail on how we will monitor, but that is effectively the vehicle for it: NatureScot and the JNCC advising Government based on all the science and all the data that is out there, plus industry information.

That is fine.

With the greatest of respect, convener, you gave me only half of that sentence—that there is a

“presumption in favour of sustainable use”.

The second part is very important and I think that that is reflected in my answer to you, because you put it to me that there was a presumption for sustainable use and I said that it is a balance between the two things.

Indeed.

It does not really.

There are lessons to be learned from that, convener, but I would also point to what Kenny Coull said. He said that the static gear representatives could have been in those meetings but were not. I do not want to labour that point, because that was then and this is now. We now have a situation in which it is engaged, and I want those relationships to be nurtured and improved going forward, because if there is one lesson that we have learned—I am not referring just to Government, but to everyone who is involved—it is that we should not assume that the position in 2014 will be the position in 2020, because the science, the evidence and the data change.

On the cameras and sensors on boats that monitor fishing activities, I will just say that there is now a requirement for all scallop dredge vessels and pelagic fishing vessels that operate in Scottish waters to have sensors—whether they involve REM or whatever—to monitor all the activity that is associated with the catch. That applies not only to the Scottish fleet; it involves every vessel that is fishing in that area. The requirement will be rolled out to other fleet segments, so there will be even more data coming in from the fishing sector.

There is a 16-week consultation—I will ask John Mouat for the dates on that, because there are lots of consultations and I do not want to give the wrong dates. The spatial platform and everything associated with that will be available before the consultation, I believe.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Carbon Budgets) Amendment Regulations 2025 to the committee. If members do not mind, in the interests of time, I will not use the full title from now on.

As you know, on 21 May, the Climate Change Committee published advice on carbon budgets for Scotland. After considering that advice, the Scottish Government laid the regulations in draft on 19 June to set the carbon budgets in legislation to provide new emissions reduction targets. The five-year carbon budgets limit the amount of greenhouse gases that Scotland will emit over the coming decades up to 2045. The carbon budget levels in the draft regulations have been set at the levels that were advised by our independent statutory adviser, the Climate Change Committee. Although they are pending parliamentary approval, the levels in the proposed five-year carbon budgets demonstrate that the Scottish Government is committed to ambitious but deliverable climate action.

In parallel with laying the regulations in Parliament, the Scottish Government published a statement, in accordance with the 2009 act, that included information on the types of policies that were under consideration for inclusion in the next climate change plan. The committee will be aware that that statement also outlined that we envisage that the delivery of the carbon budgets will involve some variation in the actions and policies that were put forward by the CCC. However, that issue is to do with how to implement the carbon budgets through the climate change plan. I stress that we agree with the CCC on the levels at which to set the carbon budgets up to 2045 to deliver net zero.

Indeed, the CCC made clear its role as an advisory body, rather than a policy maker. The CCC’s balanced pathway is based on a modelled emissions reduction pathway that it describes as non-prescriptive but which, in its opinion, is a feasible and cost-effective route to net zero. It is entirely within the gift of any Government that the CCC advises to put forward a different path. That said, we are in broad agreement with all the CCC’s priority recommendations for action, although we need to take a different approach on two of its proposals, which relate to agriculture and peatland.

The new draft climate change plan will set out the policies and proposals to reduce our emissions, in keeping with the carbon budgets that are approved by Parliament. In that plan, we will set out the costs and benefits of the policies, and our core principle of a just transition will be incorporated throughout it. Discussion on the detail of the draft plan will take place in due course. The timescale for laying the draft version of the next climate change plan is dependent on Parliament approving the carbon budgets. I am grateful to the committee for considering the regulations so speedily. I also understand that, following the decision of the committee, Parliament aims to complete its consideration of the instrument in advance of the October recess.

In that scenario, I aim to lay the draft climate change plan before Parliament in around the end of October or the beginning of November, which would be in advance of the statutory timescale for publishing the next draft climate change plan. That timescale will also ensure that Parliament has the amount of time that is required by statute to consider the draft CCP in advance of its being finalised by ministers.

In parallel with Parliament’s consideration of the draft climate change plan, we will invite wider views through a public consultation, given the need to bring people with us on the journey to net zero, and we will seek the views of the Climate Change Committee. Ministers will then consider Parliament’s views and the other responses that have been received, with the aim of finalising the CCP in this parliamentary session. It is my firm hope that, in doing so, we can send a strong signal that Scotland and the Scottish Parliament are united on the need for climate action and delivery.

I hope that we all agree that the climate crisis is the defining challenge of our generation. Rarely in our lives do we encounter a choice in which the options that are posed will have such a lasting effect on generations to come. That is why I aim to publish the draft version of the next climate change plan as soon as possible after Parliament has approved the carbon budgets regulations.

I am content to take questions.

Yes. As was set out, the timeline is within statute. When we received the advice, we had up to three months to lay the regulations. We took a month to do that, because the carbon budgets that were suggested are challenging. We had to make sure that the sectors concerned, and the other portfolios that have climate action at their heart, were able to discuss how we would be able to achieve them and accept the advice.

At the point at which the climate change plan was laid and finalised in the previous parliamentary session, I was in the position that you are in, convener. I felt then that we had enough time to consider the plan. I disagreed with Parliament’s decision, to be honest, because I thought that the 70 per cent target was far too challenging; I felt that it was at the extreme end. However, Parliament’s view was that we had to aim high. Maybe it is a good thing to aim high, as it means that you accelerate the action to get there.

In my opening statement, I laid out how I believe that the climate change plan can be delivered in time for the parliamentary recess. Obviously, it is up to the committee to decide how it scrutinises the draft plan, the amount of time that it spends on scrutiny and the number of evidence sessions that it has. However, I am certainly confident that the Government has the resources and the team to do that. Over the summer, my team has been working at pace on the draft climate change plan, which is why we are confident that, should the motion on the instrument be agreed to today, we can get going and have the draft plan in front of you by the end of October or the start of November.