 The next item of business is an urgent question. If a member wishes to seek a supplementary question, they should please press the request-to-speak button during the question or by entering the letters RTS in the chat function, I call Liam Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the climate change committee's reports on progress in reducing emissions in Scotland's 2022 report to Parliament and Scottish Emissions Targets' first five-yearly review. The report from the climate change committee published earlier today was produced under the provisions of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009, and both reports were laid in the Scottish Parliament today. I am grateful to the CCC's latest advice, which makes clear the scale of the challenge in meeting the emissions reductions targets set by this Parliament, as recognised by the committee these targets are among the most stretching in the world, but it is right that we continually act as being ambitious in looking to make sure that we take effect in reducing our emissions targets overall. The provisions of the Act requires Scottish ministers to respond to the climate change committee as soon as reasonably practicable. Once we have considered the advice fully, I will be a copy of the response before the Parliament as soon as possible. Since the climate change act referred to became law in 2009, the Scottish Government has failed to achieve seven out of 11 interim targets. In 2018, the Government put over 200 policies and proposals into a climate change plan, which it then updated in 2020. When I asked whether it had costed achieving its net zero ambitions by 2045, the cabinet secretary told me that it hadn't and wouldn't until a new plan was published at an undisclosed point in the future. I and many colleagues around the chamber have been warning this Government for years about the lack of evidence, data and financial planning. What has the cabinet secretary done prior to this devastating report, and now going forward to ensure that its targets are realistic, backed by clear delivery plans and fully costed prior to launch? I am grateful to the member for his question. Let me just set out in terms of the process that is already in place. The member made reference to an unspecified timeline. The member may be aware that legally we are bound to publish an updated climate change plan by the end of next year, and that work has already started. It will set out in detail the policies that will be taken forward and take into account the advice that we have now received from the CCC on this occasion. It will demonstrate clearly the link between the policy and the outcome that it will achieve in helping to reduce overall emission levels. The member will also be aware that the Committee on Climate Change has also been challenging Governments across the whole of the UK. It is similar to the report that was issued in relation to the UK Government's climate change plans. It is asking for much more detail on delivery. Let me give you a practical example of looking to make sure that we put those delivery mechanisms in place. For example, we published back in October last year our building strategy for decarbonisation of domestic heating. In the last few months, we have also published a delivery plan directly associated with that. We can demonstrate the measures that we are going to take forward. The member asked about the overall cost of that. For example, decarbonising domestic heating is potentially in the region of more than £30 billion, some of which will come from the public purse and some of which will also come from the private sector, all of which are areas that are being developed at the present moment and actions are being taken forward to deliver that. I can assure the member that the work that we will take forward in delivering the new updated climate plan that we are required to do will take into account that advice and make sure that we provide a level of detail that they are looking for. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. I noted the inevitable and rather predictable pivot within that answer to blaming the UK Government. The climate change committee was very clear that it is this Government that has the powers to take action on decarbonising buildings, transport and farming, but they have not used them. Responsibility for those failures lies squarely at their door, no matter how much the cabinet secretary tries to suggest otherwise. Since the cabinet secretary brought it up, let's examine decarbonising heat in buildings. In the context of a £2 billion underspent and the biggest financial settlement in the history of devolution, can the cabinet secretary tell us how cutting £37 million from the energy efficiency capital grants budget and £45 million from the heat in buildings capital grants budget will help to achieve the targets that are so catastrophically missed? The member might want to reflect on the comments that I made. The comments that I made about the UK Government assessment by the CCCC was not that I was blaming the UK Government. I was pointing out the issue of a very similarly critical report of the UK Government strategy because of the lack of detail, which is a reflection of the approach that has been taken by the Climate Change Committee in pushing Governments to be much clearer on the delivery work that they are taking forward to meet their statutory targets. That is exactly what I have given a commitment to do. That work has already started and has been taken forward at the present moment. The member made reference specifically to the issue of decarbonisation of domestic premises. There are a number of factors that are important in relation to that. One is the decarbonisation of our natural gas system. As yet, it is unclear, because the UK Government controls that exactly when that is going to happen. It is an important issue that we are keen to resolve with them, so we have clarity. That informs the investments that we make in helping to support the decarbonisation of people's domestic heating systems. We need to have that alignment. As the member will recognise, one of the key recommendations that we came from that report is the need for greater co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. That is why we have been asking for clarity on that, so we can ensure that the £1.8 billion that we are investing in this parliamentary term alone, which is record investment in decarbonising domestic premises, is used in the most efficient effective way, which is why we need clarity on when we are going to switch our natural gas energy system. That type of approach allows us to make the right informed decisions and to ensure that we are making the progress that I am sure the member wants to make and that we want to make in reducing our overall greenhouse gas emissions. Before I call any supplementary speaker, can I just say that we have now spent six minutes and 53 seconds on three questions and answers? I have received a number of requests for supplementaries. I managed to take many of them as entirely dependent on there being brief one questions and brief answers to match. Colin Smyth, supplementary, please. This report is utterly damning. Progress is stalled. 7-11 legal targets missed. A plea made a year ago for clarity and transparency has gone completely unanswered by the Government. Let us take one of many examples of failure transport. The Climate Change Committee says that we will need 24,000 public charging points by 2030 for electric vehicles. Cabinet Secretary has chosen just over 4,000 in total in the next few years. Does the Cabinet Secretary and the Government even have a target for 2030, the day it says that it will transition to 100 per cent electric car and van sales? When will it set out a clear plan to meet that target for public EV charging points? I am sure that the member will also recognise that the Committee on Climate Change has acknowledged that Scotland has got one of the most extensive public EV charging infrastructures in the whole of the UK, with the exception of central lending. As we have set out, we are investing over £60 million, £30 million from the Scottish Government, £30 million of private sector investment to extend the EV charging network even further in Scotland to make sure that we build on the good progress that we have been making in recent years. Fiona Hyslop is a hard critical report on assessing performance against hard targets set under pressure from and supported by all political parties in this Parliament. Can the Scottish Government also set out which key priority decisions in reserved areas by the UK Government to reduce emissions in Scotland, together with its own required improvements in delivery, are needed to address the climate change committee's concerns? I can think of three immediate areas that we need urgent clarity on. One is in relation to carbon capture utilisation storage, the ACORN project, which needs to progress urgently. Not only is a significant investment getting into that now, it is mission critical to mean our climate change targets here by 2030 and also for the UK, so no more dithering from the UK government on this matter is acceptable. We also need to see further investment into areas that are helping to support to make sure that we have in place systems that can help to roll out a renewable energy programme much more effectively, which is why we need to see reform of the consenting regime, a key part of which is reserved to the UK government, and why we also need to make sure that we see changes being made to the way in which there are regulatory costs being applied to aspects of our renewables, which are acting as an inhibitor to further development. We are leading the report, exposing glaring gaps in plans and progress being jeopardised by ministers failure to co-operate at UK level or to give local councils a fair deal. In light of the CCC stating, aviation policy runs counter to targets, whether the SNP green government will now revisit its support for Heathrow expansion. We are developing an aviation strategy, which will look at both domestic and international aviation, which will be published next year and will set out our approach to aviation policy. In the last session of Parliament, four parliamentary committees raised serious concerns that the climate change plan was not fit for purpose, so it was good to hear the UK CCC finally reflect many of those concerns in their report today. Undoubtedly, the new climate change plan must do better, so will the cabinet secretary accept that we urgently need to drive down the growth in aviation mileage and that no options should be off the table to do that. We will be covered in the aviation strategy, which I just made reference to. I can give the member an assurance that the climate change update plan, which we have already started work on, which will be published next year in draft form, will make a much clearer link between policy and delivery outcomes and how that will impact on our climate change policy overall. That concludes the urgent question. I apologise to those members who I was not able to call for the reasons that I made quite clear a wee bit earlier. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to change positions should they wish.