 The next item of business is a statement by Roseanna Cunningham on Scotland's plans to tackle climate change and reduce emissions. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so if any member wishes to ask a question, I would encourage you to press your request to speak button now. In 2009, the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the most ambitious climate change legislation anywhere in the world. Eight years later, I am laying the Scottish Government's third report on policies and proposals for meeting the statutory emissions reductions targets from 2018 to 2032, our climate change plan. A little late, thanks to last week's weather, but perhaps fittingly so, given that for Scotland the reality of climate change will mean increasingly frequent severe weather events. That plan has been prepared in accordance with sections 35 and 36 of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009. In January 2017, I laid before Parliament a draft version of the plan, and I am grateful for the scrutiny of four parliamentary committees. In considering the recommendations made, advice was received from the Committee on Climate Change along with feedback from a wide range of stakeholders with interests across the entire range of society and the economy. I wish to formally thank everyone involved in the development of this final plan. We have responded with changes that I believe result in a better plan, more balanced, more ambitious and more achievable. The final version of the plan is very different to the draft. It addresses members' concerns and presents what is undeniably a complex set of issues, policies and proposals in a more accessible way. In short, we listened and we have produced a climate change plan fit for the future and for a growing economy. What is in the plan? It sets out a vision of Scotland's society for 2032 and the policies that will get us there. Of course, in our programme for government in September last year, we also announced significant policy changes affecting greenhouse gas emissions, and those have been embedded within the plan. The plan is broken down into sectors of the economy and sets out the contribution of each. Scotland's electricity system has been our great success to date and shines a light on the path for other sectors to follow. Already largely decarbonised, our electricity system will be increasingly important as a power source for heat and transport. With our new energy strategy for Scotland, published in December, we are committed to delivering 50 per cent of all Scotland's energy needs from renewables by 2030. By 2032, we will also have set the scene for the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies. Although the plan does not rely on CCS to deliver our emission reduction ambitions, our support for the Acorn site at St Fargus, which will demonstrate how our North Sea infrastructure can be reconfigured and reused to remove and store carbon from the atmosphere, shows our determination to do even more in the energy sector. In transport, we will transform the way that we travel. Scotland will be a safer and friendlier place for pedestrians and cyclists, and our plans for electric vehicles and infrastructure mean that we will phase out the need to buy petrol in diesel cars and vans a full eight years ahead of the UK. We will introduce low emission zones to Scotland's largest cities, improving the quality of our air, and we will take significant strides towards greener buses, HGVs and ferries. Our buildings will be insulated to the maximum appropriate level and will increasingly be heated and cooled by low-carbon technologies, which will benefit consumers through lower heating bills, helping to combat fuel poverty. An entire low-carbon services sector will grow around £1.5 billion that we are investing in Scotland's energy efficiency programme. Over the lifetime of this plan, we will end the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste, reduce food waste and both industry and consumers will benefit from a more circular economy. By 2032, we will have transformed our landscape, new forest will be planted in the right places and more of our peatlands will be restored to health, storing greater amounts of carbon, increasing biodiversity and making for healthier ecosystems. By 2032, we will see the realisation of our ambition for Scotland to be among the lowest carbon and most efficient food producers in the world. Scotland will be a world-class producer of high-quality food, with growing numbers of farmers and crofters moving to low-carbon farming practices. That will not only achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but will generate improvements in animal health and welfare, provide cleaner water and air, and crucially save farmers money. Scotland's industrial sector will be more energy efficient, more productive and will be using more innovative technologies, presenting significant economic and competitive opportunities. That will be supported by our low-carbon infrastructure transition programme, through which we will provide £60 million of new investment to maximise Scotland's enormous potential in the low-carbon sector. The significant decarbonisation that is needed in industry depends, of course, on our continuing access to the EU emissions trading system. Sadly, the UK Government's continued lack of clarity here is risking investment and growth in our economy. As it prepares to remove Scotland from the EU, it is imperative for the UK Government to reassure industry that the level playing field provided by the ETS across Europe will be maintained for Scottish businesses. Communities naturally have a critical role to play, and that plan recognises that. I am particularly proud of the support that we have provided through our climate challenge fund, which has helped community-led organisations to tackle climate change by running projects that reduce local carbon emissions. Businesses also have a crucial role to play. Moving early to invest in energy efficiency will protect them against rises in fuel prices, and shifting operations to a low-carbon footing will meet the expectations of an increasingly climate-aware consumer base. With an estimated $23 trillion worth of climate-friendly investment opportunities by 2030, the direction of travel is self-evident, and our message to business is simple. We will do all that we can to provide you with the certainty and stability that you need to invest and grow in the low-carbon economy. With last week's announcement of the implementation plan for the Scottish National Investment Bank, there is reassurance that we will provide flexible finance for our companies to innovate and grasp the opportunities of the low-carbon economy. The transition to an environmentally and socially sustainable economy may look daunting. To make sure that it will be a positive experience for workers, communities and businesses, we are working towards the establishment of a Just Transition Commission later this year. The commission will provide advice to ministers on how to proceed while helping to tackle inequality and poverty and promote a fair and inclusive jobs market. Scotland has a particular responsibility to deal with climate change. Arguably, it was a Scott Greenock's own James Watt who ushered in the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale. It is right that we demonstrate leadership in dealing with the causes and effects of climate change. At the global climate negotiations in Bonn last year, the First Minister said that our ambitions must live up to the scale of the challenge and our actions must live up to our ambitions. The Government is already making a difference abroad. We are working with international partners to build and maintain the momentum for action. With our climate justice fund, we are supporting some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities in Africa. However, it is our actions here at home that will give us the credibility to lead others. With that plan, we set out our ambitions for Scotland. Those ambitions will be difficult to achieve. There will be bumps on the road ahead, but we choose that road willingly, meeting the challenge head-on, with our stringent and demanding annual targets and our commitment not to purchase carbon allowances in the international markets. Soon, we will introduce a new climate change bill to raise our ambition even higher. We are not taking any easy options because this Government believes that we have a moral obligation to act. We are confident that Scotland's unique gifts, plentiful renewable energy resources, a strong legacy of innovation and the ingenuity of the people of Scotland, will enable us to realise the opportunities that lie ahead. My cabinet colleagues and I are dedicated to delivering the vision that is set out in this climate change plan to tackle one of the world's most challenging issues, and I commend this climate change plan to members. John Scott, before by Claude Ebbish. John Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and the clearing and interest of farmer. The climate change plan, published by the Scottish Government yesterday, lacks specificity and ambition across most sectors. Like others, we are frustrated that the Scottish Government has ignored many suggestions made by MSPs and parliamentary committees to improve the climate change plan, and we are disappointed to see that little has changed from the draft plan that was published a year ago. We would like to see that the Scottish Government provides more clarity in the actions that it will take and the policies that it will introduce to tackle climate change, particularly in the transport sector. Specifically last week, we saw in the latest transport statistics that bus passenger numbers in Scotland have fallen by 10 per cent over the past five years, and only 31 per cent of journeys to work whereby public or active travel in 2016 is the same as in 2006. In addition, and more worryingly, at the current rate of progress, it will take around 239 years to reach the Government's target of 10 per cent of journeys to be made by bike. How can the cabinet secretary expect there to be a modal shift away from petrol and diesel cars to public and active travel when, under her Government stewardship, we have seen such little progress thus far? Also, when will we see transport emissions start falling, given the trends that we see in car usage and active travel? John Scott, I thought that his opening comments were utterly absurd. We are one of the most ambitious Governments in the world when it comes to tackling climate change, and I do not think that he would get much argument about that from many of our international partners. To suggest that there is a lack of ambition is quite ridiculous. A great deal has, in fact, changed between the draft plan and now, not least of which has been updated greenhouse gas emissions stats to be brought on board, programme for government proposals to be wrapped into the plan, and there have been various recommendations, many of which have been included in the final plan. In respect of transport, the truth is that transport emissions will have been reduced by 37 per cent over the lifetime of the plan, which is the greatest reduction in absolute terms of any sector. We are more ambitious in our plans for transport in Scotland than the Tory run that the UK Government is at Westminster. I doubt whether anybody is looking at our proposals in respect of active travel, in respect of low-emission zones, in respect of the move towards low-emission vehicles could possibly come to the same conclusion that he has come to. I hope that this change of tone from someone who is normally a rather more reasonable individual is not indicative of a wider move across the Conservative Party in this chamber. Claudia Beamish is followed by Mark Ruskell. The stark difference between the plan and the Government's earlier draft is puzzling in some areas that are swinging quite dramatically from unrealistic to unambitious or, in the cabinet secretary's own words, more achievable. Was that really the aim? The windfall from the land use sector and the new effort in transport with fossil fuel phase-out is to be welcomed and favourable in terms of emissions, but it is so disappointing to see that used, in my understanding of the final plan, to reduce effort in other sectors. The plan is already based on the outdated ambition of the 2009 act and Scottish Labour has urged the Government to consider a 77 per cent target for emissions reductions by 2030. Can the cabinet secretary explain why most of the sectoral targets have changed so dramatically for the worse? I must focus on agriculture, which has been allowed to lag behind so sizebly that, with policies, all seem to be now about encouragement. Does the cabinet secretary feel the criticisms of this section of the earlier draft have been sufficiently addressed? There have been some significant changes since the draft plan was published, not least of which, in scientific measurement. There have been a new set of greenhouse gas emissions stats, and you have no doubt heard my previous answer about some of the other things that have changed. The draft plan and the final plan were never going to look exactly the same. Yes, we have taken the opportunity that some changes have given us to make some adjustments to the draft plan. I suppose that one of the adjustments that the member might be concerned about in terms of raining back was, for example, on the ambition on heat, which was the proposal in the draft plan that was criticised by the climate change committee, who considered that not to be credible. We have taken the opportunity to look again at that and use the capacity that we now had across the system to produce something that is considerably more achievable. The member refers to agriculture over the lifetime of the plan. The emissions from the agriculture sector will fall by 9 per cent, but I remind the member that it is almost impossible to conduct agriculture without certain levels of emissions. That is not an area of endeavour that can be emissions-free. We have to work as well as we can with farmers in order to get them to move to better practices. We have programmes in place that are allowing us to do that. 2015 stats show that agriculture emissions are down by more than 25 per cent from baseline levels, so we are making changes there and we will continue to do so. The statement talks about a final plan that is apparently more ambitious and very different to the draft. It certainly appears, cabinet secretary, that the plan is very different to the draft, because if you add up all the Scottish Government policies in the final plan, it results in emissions reductions of 1 million tonnes less than in the draft. Why is that the case? Does the Scottish Government still believe that we will be driving around in our cars a third more by 2030? I do not want to repeat some of the things that I have already said in response to John Scott and Claudia Beamish. The member will have heard me talking about some of the reasons why the changes between the draft and the final plan and many of the things that have happened in between that. The thing that has to be said about the transport is that the projections that are in the plan are on the assumption that there is no change, but there is, of course, going to be change. One of the areas for which I believe that the Government is going to deliver the most. I do not see why members should feel pessimistic about that. We are doing very well, and certainly in comparison to the Westminster Government, we are going to be doing far, far better. I hope that the member will take that on board. As I have indicated, some of the things that I have already said in response to the previous two questions apply equally to his own question. I simply do not want to repeat myself. Graham Dates will be followed by Liam McArthur. Environmental campaigners of Scotland and the Scottish Government to do much more to cut emissions from domestic properties. Given 80 per cent of Scotland's homes are heated by gas, could the cabinet secretary outline what in practice that would mean for public expenditure, the supply chain and, indeed, the householders themselves? It would be quite difficult and, in some areas, incredibly disruptive. I made reference in an earlier answer to the fact that the independent adviser of the committee on climate change has already advised that the transition to near-zero emissions buildings is likely to take decades. We should be realistic about the contribution that this sector can make to targets in 2032. It criticised the original ambition in the draft plan. A key consideration that we have to take on board is the risk of stranded assets, which is where a less disruptive or competitive solution may be anticipated. We do not want to find ourselves going down one direction and discovering that there is a better direction that we might have taken. We are going to focus on policies that are relatively low-cost and provide relatively large benefits. That helps to optimise investment decisions in the near term, but, in the meantime, there is innovation, which will help in the longer term. We will be working with partners in the United Kingdom Government to determine the best route to decarbonise the natural gas network, for example through the injection of hydrogen. We plan for a future of heat supply. We are continuing to deliver real measures on the ground. We are on track to deliver the 2016 programme for government commitment to make £0.5 billion available for fuel poverty and energy efficiency over the four years to 2021, and, arguably, some of the original proposals that were in the draft plan may have exacerbated the situation in respect to fuel poverty rather than solve it. Liam McArthur, to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Graham Day said, environmental groups have expressed concerns about some of the changes from the draft to this final plan. The existing Homes Alliance says that Scotland shivers government cuts warm homes ambition. It is right that the cabinet secretary takes on board points made about the deliverability of targets, but can she justify a collapse in the target for low-carbon domestic heat from 80 per cent in the draft to 35 per cent in the final plan? What will that do to address issues around fuel poverty, which, as the latest figures suggest, is again highest in my constituency? If I can just reiterate a little what I have already indicated, the criticisms—I understand why they are—have just looked at a figure in the draft plan, looked at a figure in the final plan and perhaps not thought through carefully why there is that difference. I go back again to say that the Committee on Climate Change advised that the draft plan's targets were not credible. We have to look as a Government as to what is actually doable. It is interesting that, when I am asked questions about various aspects, what I do not get are any actual suggested solutions. I do not want to make that sound as a criticism of Liam McArthur. There are real issues about making that practicable and doable, and we are working towards targets. Working towards them would have involved—the original targets would have involved making early decisions on low-carbon technologies with the risk of backing the wrong solution. That would have ended up costing us considerably more and us can mean the consumer. Claudia Beamish and everybody else can shake their head. What would they propose we do? Go into everybody's homes within the next five years and rip out all the gas central heating. Members in this chamber are thinking about their own central heating proposals, planning on doing that. There are some real issues about practicality, disruption and our ability to ensure that, as we move forward, people do not end up in a worse situation than they are now. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Finlay Carson. Can I thank the Scottish Government for the support that is given to the ACORN project in my constituency? It is one of a series of initiatives that underpin Scotland's international reputation. How are other countries catching up with us? How are they using our example in their own domains? In particular, I was thinking of nations like Sweden. Of course, we are frequently compared to Sweden. Despite the response of some members here today, the traditional way of describing our positioning is that we are third behind Sweden and Finland in the world for tackling climate change. There are one or two things to think about Sweden that need to be said. First of all, Sweden does not include the land use sector in their emissions. It does not include aviation and maritime emissions, unlike Scotland. It has no annual targets the way that Scotland does, and it reserves the right to buy international carbon credits to make up 15 per cent of its emissions. Therefore, we are not comparing like with like. On one view, we are doing considerably better. If, objectively, some people are saying that we are third behind Sweden and Finland, I am making a point here that, when we compare ourselves to Sweden, in my view, we are doing better. Perhaps we could claim to be the best in the world. The ambition for decarbonising Scotland's buildings has been dramatically rained into 35 per cent, even though the Committee on Climate Change suggested a target of 50 per cent. The CCC said that achieving ambitious levels of low-carbon heating requires immediate action rather than waiting until 2025 and describes low-regret actions that can be taken now, such as new buildings, heat pumps for off-grid gas homes, greater use of biomass and new district heating systems. Why does the plan say that low and no-regret options for low-carbon heat will still be left till after 2025? If those options for decarbonisation are low or no or low regret, why is action not being taken in the short term? We are, of course. There is an enormous energy efficiency programme that is funded to the tune of £0.5 billion about to start in Scotland. I am not quite sure what the member thinks that is about, but I can tell you that it is about that particularly. The Climate Change Committee did advise us, as I have said on a number of occasions, to hear this afternoon that our original targets were not credible. What we are now proposing is both a balance between domestic and non-domestic. Balance, in my view, of ambition with realism is setting low-carbon heat targets of 35 per cent for the domestic sector and 70 per cent for the non-domestic sector. That is in line with the climate change committee's assessment of what can be achieved. Activity until 2025 will focus on low-regret heat decarbonisation technologies, such as the uptake of renewable heat technologies in individual buildings off the gas grid and supporting low-carbon district heating in appropriate areas. I think that what we have proposed here is in line with the Committee on Climate Change advice as a way forward. I reiterate that some of what could be suggested as being presented as a possibility would be a massive disruption within Scotland and almost impossible practically to achieve. Ivan McKee to be followed by David Stewart. Cabinet Secretary, explain how the Government plans to engage with new technologies to support the electrification of the transport sector? We have already got innovation at the heart of the Scottish Government's low-carbon transport policies. We are already supporting international firsts on the use and production of hydrogen for transport, including the surf and turf initiative in Orkney, in Liam McArthur's constituency. The PFG commitment to end the need for new petrol and diesel by 2032 is another signal that Scotland can be at the forefront of innovation and new technologies. In September 2017, we launched a £60 million low-carbon innovation fund. That aim to support a range of new low-carbon projects in Scotland, including our ambitions on low-emissions vehicles. We also continue to work closely with the energy sector and regulators to support future investment and innovation in areas such as smart grids, vehicle charging and refuelling. We are also tracking emerging technologies and business models to better understand their potential impacts and the support that we can provide. I think that there are further announcements coming in respect of that, so perhaps I should leave that to my ministerial colleagues. David Stewart to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. The Cabinet Secretary for Industry and the Constitution rightly said that significant decarbonisation in the industrial sector depends on continuing access to the EU emissions trading scheme. What assessment has the cabinet secretary made of the effect of withdrawal from the EU emissions trading scheme will have on the climate change plan, and has any work been carried out with the other nation states in the UK to develop a UK ETS? It is fair to say that the EU ETS is a single most important policy instrument in driving down industrial emissions. We continue to call for clarity from the UK Government as it prepares to leave the EU. I may say that, until last week, there had been almost no response whatsoever to that. There is now some indication that some thought is finally being given as to what the future might hold in terms of an emissions trading system, although we are completely unclear as to how that might look. We have had to operate on the basis of the current scenario, which is a fully functioning ETS across the whole of Europe. Clearly, if we do not end up having a continuing to be part of that, I think that there will be some significant impact that will require at that point to be measured. However, it is a difficult position and, ironically, it is one framework in which I think that everybody agrees that we need something in its place if we are not to join or continue to be part of the EU ETS. However, thus far, there seems to be precious little serious engagement and thought-given from Westminster. I welcome the plan in that Cope Ridge has been earmarked as a targeted area for low emissions zones given high levels of pollution and social deprivation. Will the cabinet secretary explain the concept of carbon leakage and its potential implications for the Scottish economy in the context of Brexit? It is a tricky concept. Carbon leakage is what occurs when industry simply relocates to jurisdictions with lower decarbonisation emissions ambitions. It results in displacement of emissions rather than any overall reduction. When businesses move their operations, it would also have a detrimental effect on our economy. Climate policies that introduce costs above those of other countries could negatively impact on competitiveness of businesses with a lot of international trade. At the extreme, that could result in relocating to countries where there are more lax climate policies, leading to almost the opposite effect to the one that we are trying to reach. There would also be a risk of increased import dependence to source the inputs and intermediate products for manufacturing processes. Those are already live issues being considered by the business community, given the uncertainties associated with Brexit. We are currently a participant, as I indicated, in the EU emissions trading system, which puts a price on industrial emissions and energy production throughout the whole of Europe and allows that level playing field. We remain of the view that continued participation in the ETS and UK regulatory frameworks would ensure that industry retains that wide-level playing field that protects against carbon leakage from competitors outwith the EU. We continue to press the UKG for clarity on its plans for emissions trading as it prepares to leave the EU. We do not want to end up in a situation of action within the UK and Scotland. All that we do is export carbon emissions. I apologise to the remaining two members as we have run out of time. That concludes this item of business. We now move on to a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on widening access to higher education. The minister will also take questions at the end of this statement, so I would encourage all members who wish to ask a question to press their request to seek buttons now.