 The next item of business is the statement by Roseanna Cunningham on Scottish Greenhouse gas emissions 2017. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Roseanna Cunningham for 10 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. The 2019 is a significant year for Scotland's response to climate change. It marks the 10th anniversary of the 2009 Climate Change Act with its world-leading targets and will be the year that we collectively make a step change in our response to the global climate emergency. Today's statement, however, requires us to look back a couple of years to Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions during 2017, for which statistics were published yesterday. This is the period prior to the current climate change plan, and it is worth remembering that those figures do not reflect recent action. Scotland's emissions are reported in two ways. Firstly, as the actual quantity of greenhouse gases emitted from Scotland. On this basis, the picture is positive, with emissions continuing to fall year on year down more than 3 per cent from 2016 to 2017 and almost halved since 1990. Scotland continues to outperform the UK in delivering long-term reductions and, in the EU-15, we remain second only to Sweden. As in previous years, reported progress has been influenced by technical revisions to the greenhouse gas inventory. This time, revisions to historic forestry data mean that long-term progress appears less positive than reported in previous years. Even though Scotland's emissions fell from 2016 to 2017, the long-term reduction reported this year of 47 per cent is less positive than that reported last year of 49 per cent. The statistics also include figures on the adjusted emissions basis used for reporting on targets under the 2009 act, which includes an accounting adjustment for the operation of the EU emissions trading scheme. That adjustment is based on the assumption that Scottish industry uses a fair share of the permits available through the scheme. In recent years, the number of permits made available across the EU has increased, so the assumed amount being used in Scotland has increased. Although that does not reflect reality on the ground, on this adjusted reporting basis, Scottish emissions rose by 3.7 per cent between 2016 and 2017. Partly as a result of the EU-ETS accounting adjustment and partly because of the inventory revisions, the fixed annual target for 2017 under the 2009 act of 43.946 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent has therefore been missed by around 2.5 million tonnes. That is, of course, disappointing. However, the position in terms of year-on-year changes and actual Scottish emissions remains positive. I would also like to correct some media reports suggesting that the target for 2016 was also missed. That is simply untrue. Scotland's statutory annual targets for 2014, 2015 and 2016 were all met, and progress remains consistent with meeting the current interim target for 2020. Our new climate change bill includes changes to the target framework to improve transparency and allow for clearer scrutiny of progress. The bill proposes targets based on actual, rather than adjusted emissions, and includes mechanisms to manage the year-to-year effects of inventory revisions. Looking at the statistics in detail, it shows that we have seen reductions in emissions across most sectors since 1990. Emissions from energy supply and waste are down by almost three quarters, industrial emissions are down almost 40 per cent, residential emissions are down almost a quarter and those from public sector buildings are down by over a third. Agricultural emissions are down by almost 30 per cent. Continuing to drive down emissions in those sectors and tackling those sectors where reductions are more challenging will not be easy, however we have to meet the challenge. Transport remains Scotland's largest source of emissions, and we recognise that emissions from transport have been rising. Scotland already has the most ambitious agenda in the UK for decarbonising transport, including our commitment to phase out the need for new petrol and diesel cars by 2032, and we continue to prioritise investment in active travel and have maintained our active travel budget of £80 million for 2019-20. We are taking steps to further strengthen our policy framework through the review of the national transport strategy. Climate change will be a core theme. The Transport Bill includes provisions to support low-emission zones and improve bus services. In addition, we are supporting amendments from the Green Party on workplace parking levies, which will be an additional tool for local authorities to tackle transport emissions. I visited Glasgow City Council this morning. Glasgow has pledged to become the first carbon-neutral city in the UK, and during the visit I heard more about the ruggedised project, which sees the Council Transport Scotland and Scottish Power working together to deploy rapid CV charges and support the development of electric taxis in the city. I hope that the example of Glasgow will be followed by other parts of Scotland. The second largest source of Scottish emissions is agriculture. The CCC's scenario for net zero recognises that this sector will remain the most substantial source of emissions, because the vast bulk of those are from biological sources inherent in food production. We are continuing to explore the potential for reducing emissions with both the agriculture industry and our renowned scientific community to find solutions that are beneficial for the environment, Scotland's farmers and our wider food and drink industry. We should recognise that our farmers also contribute to emissions reduction through forestry, land use and electricity generation for which they must be given due credit. Buildings also represent a significant source of emissions, which is why we are transforming Scotland's homes, businesses and public buildings to be warmer, greener and more efficient. By the end of 2021, we will have allocated over £1 billion to tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency to make homes warmer and cheaper to heat. We are currently seeking views on the potential impacts of accelerating energy-efficient Scotland, where we can move faster on our targets and continue to support a just transition to a net zero economy across both rural and urban Scotland. We will. The Committee on Climate Change acknowledges that higher overall levels of ambition require more expensive and harder to implement options. That is not a reason to avoid taking action. It does, however, mean difficult choices, not just for government but for this Parliament and society as a whole. It will also mean that the UK Government is playing its part. I welcome the UK Government's announcement following our lead and acting on the advice from the Committee on Climate Change to legislate for a net zero target. The CCC were explicit in its advice that Scotland cannot achieve net zero emissions by 2045 unless the UK does so by 2050, given the number of levers that are still reserved to Westminster. The CCC advice that Scotland should aim for net zero by 2045 and the UK should aim for 2050 was published on 2 May. The Scottish Government immediately lodged appropriate amendments to the climate change bill and I wrote to the UK Government encouraging it to amend its own legislation. In my letter, I also asked for an urgent meeting to discuss the collaborative action needed and called on the UK Government to act on carbon capture, utilisation and storage deployment, decarbonising the gas grid, redesigning vehicle and tax incentives to support zero-emission and sustainable transport choices, committing to adhering to future EU emissions standards, reducing VAT on energy efficiency improvements in homes and ensuring continued support for the renewables industry. Yesterday, I received a response that is welcome but, unlike the Government, I think that this issue is too important to simply discuss in the margins of a meeting on Brexit. The response also fails to offer substantial updates on the specific areas of reserve policy action that I raised. I would have hoped that now that they have finally decided to amend the legislation, UK Government ministers would be prepared to meet as a matter of priority to discuss how reserved levers can be applied to achieve net zero emissions in Scotland and the rest of the UK. Delivering transformative change associated with more ambitious targets means ramping up our own action, too. I have previously confirmed that climate change will be at the core of our next programme for government and spending review, and we will update the climate change plan within six months of the climate change bill receiving royal assent. In my statement to Parliament last month, I outlined the specific steps that we had taken to strengthen our response since receiving the Committee on Climate Change Advice, such as new and ambitious action on deposit return, agriculture, renewables and a change in our policy on air departure tax. That will continue as all cabinet secretaries look across the full range of policy areas to identify areas where we can go further faster. To conclude, while Scotland is demonstrating strong leadership and making strong progress, achieving the transformative changes that are needed in response to the global climate emergency needs us as a country to go further faster. That will be hard. There will be risks and challenges to overcome. There will also be tremendous opportunities, not only in reducing emissions but in growing and diversifying our economy, improving the wellbeing of our people and protecting and enhancing our natural environment. When the First Minister declared that there is a global climate emergency, she said that Scotland will live up to our responsibility to tackle it. That is exactly what we will do. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement, and I intend to allow 20 minutes for that. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question would press a request to speak butons now, please, and I call on Maurice Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the cabinet secretary for advance site of the statement. There is much to welcome today in the fight against climate breakdown. The UK Government has announced that the UK will be the first major country on earth to commit to net zero emissions, a game-changing decision that challenges the rest of the world to follow our lead. In Scotland, we welcome the news that source emissions have declined. Unfortunately, when we factor in the EU emissions trading scheme, Scotland's emissions have actually increased by 3.7 per cent. A large part of that reason is that little has been done to tackle domestic transport emissions. Indeed, it has increased in the latest round of figures. Does the cabinet secretary agree that time has come for this Government to replace words with action and mandate that public procurement defaults to electric vehicles where possible? I thank Maurice Golden for the welcome for a significant part of the figures that have been published. I would, as he might expect me to say, that I think that Scotland is a major country. While the UK is reaching net zero by 2050, Scotland doing so by 2045 per cent has put us in the vanguard. I also want to caution him about the EU-ETS scheme, because, in a sense, it is like notional emissions, because those are permits that have been increased in the number of permits. Scotland is presumed to have taken up a percentage—in fact, we have not—and the reality is that that aspect of emissions is presumed or assumed emissions, which is why we are moving in the future to simply looking at straightforward actual emissions. He raises transport, which I have acknowledged is a serious challenge. It is not a challenge unique to Scotland, but it is a challenge that most countries are having to face. Some are managing to do better than others. We would all recognise that the work that is happening in Norway is absolutely first class, but Norway is able to look right across the range of policy levers that allow them to make some of the decisions that they are making on electric vehicles. I very much hope that he will add his voice to my voice, asking the Westminster Government to think very seriously about that. He is asking about a public procurement in particular. He knows that there are issues around public procurement that are not simple and straightforward, but he also knows that, where we are able to do things, we will. As the cabinet secretary says, we face a climate emergency. Some of the sectoral emissions figures are uncomfortable. That is a stark reminder that we have significant challenges to meet our net zero target. However, we know that it is possible, with concerted and urgent policy action, and Scottish Labour commits to making sure, along with others across the chamber, that the reassessment of the climate change plan will be held to the highest standards. The transport emissions rising year on year is indeed completely unacceptable, yet already Scottish Labour amendments to strengthen the LEZ have been blocked by this Government in the transport bill. Can the cabinet secretary explain the cabinet contradiction? Will she meet me to discuss my amendments to set the just transition commission in statute on the face of the climate change bill, which will ensure that the way forward supports affected workers and communities in a fair way throughout the shift to net zero? Roseanna Cunningham? I am not aware that the figure is a discussion going on in connection with the transport bill, but I think that the member is well aware that that is not something that I would be absolutely directly involved in. While I have frequent conversations with the cabinet secretary for transport and infrastructure, at the end of the day, he will be making the decisions that he considers to be the right ones to make. I am always available to speak to the member about just transition or any other subject, and she knows that we have undertaken to have a look again at how we perhaps might go some way to meeting what she wants, but if she wishes a formal meeting, I am happy to oblige. We move to open questions, so concise questions and answers, please. Mark Ruskell, followed by Liam McArthur. Thanks. The statement attempts to explain a missed climate target and restates existing current climate policies, but under section 36 of the climate act, when the Government misses targets, it is required to lay a report setting out policies to compensate. When will the Parliament expect that report, and will it cover public transport, which is missing from the statement? Roseanna Cunningham. Once again, I am being asked about a transport aspect to this, about which I am not 100 per cent certain. I am aware of the member's particular interest in section 36, and I will undertake to have a conversation with him separately about that. Liam McArthur, followed by Tom Arthur. Thank you. The cabinet secretary acknowledged the largest source of net emissions is transport, and yesterday's figures confirm emissions from international aviation have increased 181 per cent since 1990. The Government stubbornly continues its support for Heathrow expansion. Will the cabinet secretary not now accept that this position is incompatible with the climate emergency? Will she support my amendments to the climate change bill ensuring that the added impact of emissions at high altitudes are properly taken into account? Roseanna Cunningham. Of course, Scotland already includes a share of international aviation and shipping emissions, unlike virtually every other country that reports on emissions. I understand that the Welsh Government has now decided to do the same—I may be wrong in that, but I think that that is the case. The member is rightly drawing attention to aviation increases. Scotland again is not alone in that. There are a large number of countries where aviation emissions have increased fairly rapidly. That is something that needs to be worked on. By including a fair share of international aviation and shipping emissions, Scotland is being much more transparent about that. I am not aware of the specific amendment that Liam McArthur lodged in terms of the climate change bill. I am happy, of course, as always, to discuss it with him, but it needs to be said that good international connectivity is vital for Scotland's economic prosperity in the future. There is a real balancing act that has to be brought into play here. I notice that the CCC advised that net zero can be achieved by 2045, with emissions from international aviation and agriculture being offset through carbon sinks. There is some work to be done in and around that. Tom Arthur, followed by John Scott. It is very welcome that the UK Government has finally followed Scotland's lead and acted on the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to adopt a net zero target date. However, the cabinet secretary agrees that, given that the CCC were clear on the need for action in reserved areas to meet our 2045 target, there is now urgent need for the UK Government to engage seriously with the Scottish Government. Roseanna Cunningham The CCC made it clear that achieving our ambitions is contingent on UK-wide policies ramping up significantly. That is critical. I have written on 2 May, again on 20 May, to the UK Government to request that urgent meeting. We have not yet been able to organise that meeting, but we need to discuss the collaborative action that is needed. Although so many levers are still reserved, the UK Government has an essential role to play in decarbonising Scotland. It needs to accept that responsibility. Given the climate emergency, it is crucial that meaningful engagement takes place as a matter of urgency. I hope to be able to ensure that it does. John Scott, followed by Stuart McMillan. I declare an interest as a farmer and, while I welcome the cabinet secretary's acknowledgement of the contribution that farmers, crofters and land managers have made since 1990 and during 2017, can I ask her what additional support she and cabinet secretary Fergus Ewing can give to agriculture in financial terms, but also in terms of recognition through whole farm measurements of individual farmers' contributions to reducing emissions by peatland restoration, by a forestation and decarbonised energy production on their land? A question that contains an awful lot of detail. I know that the member will understand that the range of issues that he has raised there make it difficult to answer in a short space of time. First of all, I would be one of the first to want to recognise the contribution that farmers make. The way that the statistics are compiled makes it impossible to reflect it in the way that they want in the stats, but, of course, we are not in control of that process. Until that changes, we are not able to do so. I am absolutely of the view and believe very strongly that we should understand and find a mechanism by which we can reflect the real work that is done across a range of sectors—forestry, energy and so on. I think that energy was one of the ones that he missed out, and that farmers are contributing to emissions reductions quite significantly but are not being recognised for that. That is very important. In terms of future economic support, the member will also be well aware that, although the current Brexit discussion is going on, the clarity around future support is simply not there. I have said to him before that it would be helpful if the shared prosperity fund, which the current DEFRA Secretary has referred to, was fleshed out a little bit more to become, other than simply a phrase containing three words. Stuart McMillan, followed by Alex Rowley. One of the targets previously indicated that the phasing out of new petrol and diesel cars by 2032 has touched upon already in the statement. However, for many drivers, the cost of purchasing an electric car will be prohibitive. The cabinet secretary outlined what she thinks needs to be done to make that a realistic possibility for people. We recognise that higher up-front costs can be a barrier to consumers and businesses thinking of making the switch to an electric vehicle and that many of the vehicles currently available are in the premium vehicle class. However, that will change over the next few years as the market develops and as technology changes. To support uptake of electric vehicles right now, our low-carbon transport loan offers interest-free loans for individuals and business. In 2018, we increased that from 8 million to 20 million, enabling more consumers and businesses to make the switch. We have also put in place our plugged-in households that are helping housing associations to improve access to electric vehicles. Through our funding and the work of local authorities, Scottish electric vehicle owners also benefit from one of Europe's most comprehensive EV charging networks to charge place Scotland. I add that, if what I saw this morning in Glasgow City Council's plans come to fruition, there will be some very remarkable advances made and the evidence of that will be clear for all to see before the end of the year. Alex Rowley, followed by Rona Mackay. Presiding Officer, waste management has shown a 2.6 per cent emissions increase in 1617. That is disappointing, given the efforts of the Scottish Government, local government and, indeed, the private sector. Can the cabinet secretary shed any light on the reasons for this increase? As a member would expect, on receipt of those statistics, we begin to look very closely and carefully at what might lie behind them. Sometimes it is a fairly straightforward issue, sometimes it is not. I was disappointed in that as well. One of the big issues that we have at the moment is food waste. I do not think that people understand that food waste converts to climate change to carbon emissions very easily. It is one of the linkages that people do not quite understand. I suspect that a fair bit of it might lie in that, which is one of the reasons why we are trying to drive down food waste, because that will have a very significant positive impact if we can drive that down on climate change emissions. However, the work to get behind some of those statistics will now be on-going. I hope that the member will continue to take an interest in waste. I certainly hope that, when we introduce, for example, deposit return, that that will also make a big difference in that regard. The Committee on Climate Change focused on Scotland's capacity for carbon sinks, mentioned earlier by the cabinet secretary, to help us to meet our ambitious net zero target. Can the cabinet secretary expand a bit further on that capacity? Roseanna Cunningham? Carbon sinks and negative emissions solutions are going to be vital to achieving net zero by 2045, but by then there will still be some sectors, most notably agriculture and international aviation, producing emissions. Those have to be offset through negative emissions solutions such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and what we choose to do with our land such as tree planting. Scotland has a huge advantage here, which we have to capitalise on, but it is that advantage that the Committee for Climate Change has spotted, which is why we have been given the target date of 2045 and not 2050. First of all, we have large expanses of land that, through different treatment, could sequester rather than release greenhouse gas emissions. I encourage all members to read the report from Vivid Economics that was published earlier this year, which is very optimistic about the potential land use solutions to solving climate change. Secondly, the CCC's analysis indicates that Scotland is capable of supporting up to 33 per cent of all UK bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. That will mean commercial-scale deployment of carbon capture, utilisation and storage technology, which Scotland is the best-placed country in Europe to realise. We have the potential to repurpose our legacy oil and gas pipeline infrastructure, but that all requires the UK Government to act and is one of the specific issues that I have raised with my Westminster counterpart. Alexander Burnett, followed by John Mason. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Noting my interest in housing, can I ask the cabinet secretary that, since she talks about the significance of emissions from housing and is looking to move faster on her targets, will she now follow the will of this Parliament and support an EPC target of sea or lower by 2030? In fact, I know that there is a fairly vigorous debate that has been on-going in this regard, but I remind the member that we also have a fuel poverty bill—a fuel poverty act now, I am being reminded—that we have got to make sure that the targets that we are achieving are aligned across that and not do anything in terms of housing that will create a bigger problem in terms of fuel poverty. It is one of the complex interchanges that there are here that we have got to be absolutely certain that we do not disadvantage groups of people and end up causing an unjust transition, which is the danger if an unplanned and not particularly well thought through target date is imposed in an area where the consequences, the negative consequences, could be quite grave. John Mason, followed by Elaine Smith. Thank you. The cabinet secretary mentioned both transport and buildings in her statement, and sometimes the assumption is that electricity is the answer for everything. However, does she think that hydrogen has a part to play, for example, in ferries, in trains and perhaps in the gas network? Hydrogen and fuel cell technology are expected to play a significant role in the mix of drive train options to decarbonise the wider Scottish fleet. My colleague on my left here advises me that there is to be a policy statement on hydrogen early next year, as well as allowing renewable energy to be deployed across the transport, power and heating sectors. Hydrogen has particular benefits in heavy-duty transport and intensively used vehicles, which we have already seen in respect of the deployment of hydrogen fuel cell buses in Aberdeen, soon to be joined by additional vehicles and a new bus fleet in Dundee. Other heavy-duty vehicles using hydrogen fuels such as refuse collection trucks and street sweepers have also been trialled in Scotland. We expect to see wider deployment as council and other fleet operators decarbonise their operations on our journey to the net zero carbon target. Scottish ministers are keen to support the hydrogen sector in playing the role that it can in reducing emissions, as well as realising economic benefits for Scotland. That is one of those areas where that is very distinctly possible. Elaine Smith, followed by Willie Coffey. I see only one mention of poverty in the statement. However, I presume that the cabinet secretary accepts that rising emissions are likely to affect those on most incomes and in more deprived areas the most. As such, could she tell the chamber whether emissions reduction policies are currently being poverty-proofed or, if not, how and when they will be? We are constantly conscious of that. That is one of the reasons why we set up the Just Transition Commission, because we know how dangerous it can be if proposals are brought forward that are not thought through in terms of their impact on groups of people. That is something that we will continue to keep under our eye. She will have heard the exchange in respect of the interplay between fuel poverty, housing standards and energy efficiency, so we just have to be incredibly careful that we do things the right way so as to avoid precisely what I know the member is concerned about. Does the cabinet secretary think that the UK Government's decision to carry forward overachievement from the second carbon budget was the right one? Given that the Committee on Climate Change is unequivocal advice from February, was it that surplus emissions should not be carried forward as that would not be consistent with the Paris agreement? I did write to the UK Government in March this year to say that the Scottish Government would strongly oppose any carry-forward of emissions to future UK carbon budgets, so I have to say that I am disappointed that it has chosen to do so anyway. Although I note that the UK Government has said that the carry-over will be used only as a contingency against technical changes to the greenhouse gas inventory, the decision sends the wrong signals at an important time for domestic and international climate action. It is one of the things that I would hope that I am able to discuss directly with my UK counterpart. That concludes questions on the ministerial statement on Scottish greenhouse gas emissions 2017. We will move on to the next statement, please, if members could shift themselves around quickly.