Chamber and committees

Yes—absolutely.

We need the CCC to give us advice—

That is a very good point. A lot of the action that needs to be taken will require funding from Governments, and a lot of the consequentials that we might consider will be dependent on what happens in the UK space. If the UK Government puts all the actions and policy in place for getting to 2050, it is my hope that, as a result, some consequentials will come here. It must also be recognised that, if Scotland does not meet 2045, it does not look likely that the UK will meet 2050.

Other things are happening in this space, too. As any independent assessment of the action that has to happen—and its funding—will make clear, Governments cannot do this alone. Government will perhaps have to step in when there are market failures; Government will have to set the policy direction; Government will have to look at how things are procured and at all the various levers at its disposal; and Government will have to ensure that the things that it puts in place are just and affordable for the people of the country and that it does not put too much of a burden on them.

Something else that both Governments are having to open their eyes to—I should say that we are still in the early stages of this; after all, the UK Government has been in place for only nine weeks, although we have been looking into this for quite a while now—is what Government can do with the money that we have to leverage in more investment in order to get us to net zero. There is also the commercial opportunity in reducing emissions. A perfect example of that is ScotWind, which has the ability to decarbonise the electricity supply not just in Scotland but for a substantial part of the UK. That has been done by putting the ScotWind licences out there. Commercial companies bid for them and, as a result, there is commercial activity that decarbonises our electricity supply. There are lots of other such areas. We also have investment opportunities in, for example, restoring peatland, planting woodland and so on. We need to be alive to all of that.

You will get a short answer from me.

I will give you my reflections on where we could have gone further, but I want to put that in the context of some of the things that we have done. This comes back to the point that we made, in relation to your previous question, about embedding things.

If you look at many of the things that have happened in legislative and policy terms across other portfolios, you will see that net zero has absolutely been embedded. For example, because land use is one of our biggest emitters, look at the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 and the work that is being done in Mairi Gougeon’s portfolio to ensure that that act engenders a system in which landowners, land managers and farmers are compensated and rewarded for work that they do that improves biodiversity and reduces emissions. We can also look at the work that has been done in Fiona Hyslop’s portfolio on rail electrification and the commitment to have more electric vehicle charging points. We can also look at the work that has been done on the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 with regard to what happens on our peatlands.

I see that the convener is saying that I am going on for too long.

It is absolutely essential. We have seen that, when there is rolling back in climate ambition at UK level, that has an impact. Bob Doris asked an important question about the funding associated with that. When a UK Government puts net zero front and centre of its ambition, that is great news for me, because it means that there will be consequential funding. However, it is also about what is happening in the reserved space. I mentioned energy infrastructure, which is one example of something in the reserved space where there is real scope for activity. There are also regulations. There could be regulations on the types of fuels that are used for aviation or the percentage of sustainable aviation fuel that might be used. The UK Government has lots of levers that could make a material difference to our getting to net zero by 2045.

When Governments at the UK, Welsh and Northern Ireland levels prioritise getting to net zero, not just in the targets that they set and the rhetoric that they use at the United Nations climate change conference of the parties, but in actual policy action and the associated funding, we are all winners. I genuinely feel very positive about the conversations that I have had since I became acting cabinet secretary in this space. Obviously, I would have liked the budget commitment on net zero action that was made pre-election to be retained. We will have to see what comes forward in the UK budget and what that means for our budget in this space but, in terms of the action that needs to be taken to reduce emissions, if all Governments have the same ambition, we will do it.

There are lots of areas of difficulty, because this is difficult.

We have more potential in carbon sequestration. One thing that needs to happen to make a difference on taking carbon out of the atmosphere and out of our systems is a decision on carbon capture, utilisation and storage. I was on the same programme as Michael Shanks on the BBC on Sunday, and I was heartened to hear that he is in agreement with the First Minister that carbon capture and storage needs to get the track status that the previous Government said that it would have, but which it did not get.

The UK Government now seems to be keen that we accelerate that. That will make a big difference for the Acorn Project, in terms of locking carbon into our reservoirs. It will be very good for the whole of Europe, because a lot of European countries do not have the capacity that we have, and it will also be very good for the economy. That is an area where we can make quite a fast, clear difference.

I can only go on what the CCC has said, which is that it will give advice in the spring. I am sure the CCC knows that sooner is better and that the UK Government thinks that, too. It is waiting to see whether the bill is passed and whether it gives advice about a five-year carbon budget. If the bill is passed and gets royal assent in November, the CCC will refine its advice on the basis of our adopting the five-year carbon budget process.

The committee might want more clarity—correct me if I am wrong—on the timescales between getting the CCC advice and secondary legislation, and between the secondary legislation on the targets being passed and the climate change plan. I will go away and we will map that out. I keep coming back to the point that, if the CCC’s advice comes to us at the time that we hope that it will—when it has indicated to us that it will—it is my ambition to have a draft climate change plan out before the summer recess.

I have highlighted some of the risks with splitting this—that is, having two bills, having a super-affirmative process and everything else. That is what potentially puts the timetable for the climate change plan back. We have looked at how we can get a credible and deliverable climate change plan out there as soon as possible, and this is how we will do so. We have a narrow bill that sets the carbon budgeting process mechanism and gets it in statute, and we have advice, secondary legislation on the targets and a draft climate change plan. I want that to happen as quickly as possible, so that the committee and wider Scotland have the time to look at the climate change plan, which is where all the policy discussion will take place and all the action points will be.

Okay, we can do that.