Chamber and committees

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.

The simple answer is that we would not wait until the end of the five-year period. We would have those reports—

We could, but we will not.

The letter is fairly comprehensive and sets out where the errors were. You got the letter so late because of when I was alerted to the matter. It was important that I let the committee know about it.

I want a five-year carbon budget. I want us to set a trajectory. I want carbon budgets that show certainty in where we are going, as quickly as possible. I am not sure whether Northern Ireland made its decision before the Assembly was reconvened.

That is the reasoning. The Welsh Government will be aligned with us. It is not the timing of it—aligning with the UK Government—that will get us to net zero by 2045, but the action that is associated with the approach.

Are you suggesting that we publish a draft climate change plan without any advice from the CCC?

The CCC provides advice to the UK, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish Governments separately. We look with a keen eye at the advice that it gives the UK Government because, as everybody here knows, what happens in the UK with regard to its ambitions and getting to net zero by 2050 very much impacts on our ambitions of reaching net zero by 2045.

I might turn to my officials on when the UK Government is expecting its advice from the CCC. I do not have that in the front of my brain, Mr Lumsden, because I am concentrating on what we have to do. We will look at the advice that it gives the UK Government, which, of course, will inform aspects of our own thinking on these matters.

Since the new UK Government came in, I have been working closely with it on our shared ambition for net zero. I am pleased to say that we are in a space where the UK Government seems to want to accelerate action as much as we do. To take an example in a reserved area, the UK Government might decide to do something about the gas grid, such as reducing the amount of fossil fuel, in the form of natural gas, that is in there and replacing it with hydrogen. It has set out its ambition for a level of 20 per cent, which would make a big difference to Scotland’s approach to such emissions, so we would factor that in here, too.

We will be working closely among the four Governments—probably more so than ever before—on our shared ambitions on getting to net zero. I have said to Ed Miliband, and he has said to me, that as far as net zero is concerned, we will try to park party politics at the door. Our approach will be about action, co-operation, finding where we can work together on reducing emissions, and making right and fair judgments on where we can act.

In the devolved space, there will be no secrets from me about what we want to do. My climate change draft plan will go to our counterparts in Wales, Northern Ireland and the UK Government so that they can see what we are doing. During that process, I will meet cabinet secretaries and secretaries of state whose portfolios include climate change matters. If there are areas in which the UK Government says that it can go faster, and it challenges us to do the same, I will want to have those conversations.