Chamber and committees

I am grateful for that clarification, cabinet secretary. With regard to joining things together, which is a phrase that you used earlier, I was surprised that there is no reference to the national public energy agency in this strategy document, but what you have said is helpful.

I appreciate that the Government’s point of view is that, because the situation has changed, to have a public energy company is no longer the right approach. However, in the spirit of the co-operation agreement, could that be looked at again and could the Parliament have a role in that? Given the challenges that we face, we need to be ambitious and look at how we can get big system change. Will the Government keep an open mind on that?

Is it the case, then, that the Scottish Government cannot, at present, add wet wipes to the list? Secondly, how often will the list of restricted items be reviewed?

Good morning to the minister and officials. I was pleased to hear you say, minister, that you were doing some reading last night about the result of the great British beach clean and the Marine Conservation Society’s involvement in organising that. From that reading, you will know that the second most common item to be found, when it comes to the pollution of our beaches and coastline, is wet wipes that contain plastics. Will you give us an update on whether a ban on wet wipes might be the next step? The Plastic (Wet Wipes) Bill was introduced under the 10-minute rule at Westminster, and the Marine Conservation Society has said that

“Banning single-use plastic wet wipes is such an easy step to take in order to help achieve a circular economy”.

I would like your thoughts on that.

I agree with the points that my colleagues have made. We should write to both the Government and CalMac. I agree with the deputy convener that the issues raised by the petitioner dating back to May are fairly urgent and that we cannot wait for the Audit Scotland report, which will probably look at a narrower set of issues. It is right that the committee takes further action.

I thank the petitioner for bringing the matter to the Parliament’s attention.

I am not sure whether Ciaran Jenkins of Channel 4 News is aware of the discussion that we are having, but members might want to look at a very lovely Twitter thread that includes a video of the first family of beavers in Scotland to be moved to their new home.

I agree with Mark Ruskell that this is good news, but, like him, I have some questions about how this will be operationalised and the resource and funding requirements. Perhaps we should ask NatureScot and the Scottish Government for a response to the recent court ruling, given that some matters might be open to different interpretation, and from a landowner’s perspective, there might be questions about compensation for putting adaptation measures in place.

I note that 115 beavers—or around a tenth of the population—were shot and killed in Scotland last year. Despite the change in policy, there is still scope for licensing lethal control, and we need to get a better sense of what that will look like.

Thank you. My question was directed at Dave Reay, convener, but Mike Robinson might have something to add.

Thanks, Teresa. Jess, in giving your answer, will you also reflect on your earlier remarks about the public being energised and about public expectations? I am thinking about the legacy of COP26 for people here in Scotland. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

I want to pick up on what Professor Reay said about fear. There are some tough and brave decisions for politicians to make. Earlier, you said that COP26 was the most science-based COP that there has been. I wonder where the science will take us by the time we get to COP27.

Do you think that leaders, including Scotland’s First Minister, have been on a journey during COP26? Last week, the First Minister said in Parliament that projects such as Cambo should not go ahead. That decision appears to reflect the science, but politically it is probably quite difficult to say. Does that movement in the position send out a message to the leaders of other parties that we have to get with the science? Does it mean that there will be space for people to change their minds on long-standing positions?

Thank you both for those helpful remarks.

I am mindful of time, so I will try to lump a few things into one question, and witnesses can respond to the parts that are most relevant to them.

I want to return to the issue of a just transition, and, in that regard, I refer everyone to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of Unite the union and the GMB.

At the Glasgow conference, we saw climate strikers and environmentalists coming together publicly with workers and trade unions. That is a positive development. It appears that the public believe the science and are following it, but many workers are still quite sceptical about the ability of politicians and Governments to deliver a just transition, because they have never seen a just transition being delivered before. What needs to happen to make that just transition happen?

Mary Church talked about strengthening the climate change plan and developing a credible road map, and Jess Pepper touched on the issue of a route map, too. From the conversations that you have had with people at COP, what do you think people want to happen at national level?

We heard a lot about greenwashing ahead of COP and during it, in the blue zone. What can we do, in terms of public and political education, to enable us all to know that it is greenwashing when we see it, a bit like fake news? Often, we talk about education for children and young people in schools, but such education needs to be a lifelong thread running through all our lives. How can we make sure that the public have the right tools to be properly engaged in the conversation and to be able to call out greenwashing when they see it?