 The next item of business is an urgent question and I call Morris Golden. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the climate change committee stating that the scale of reductions and emissions needed for Scotland to meet its 2030 climate change targets is beyond what is credible. I am grateful for the latest advice from the Committee on Climate Change. We will carefully consider the report's recommendations and, indeed, we are already actively considering the Government's next steps. It is worth noting that the CCC has always been clear that meeting the legislated 2030 target, which was agreed by this Parliament on a cross-party basis, will be extremely challenging and may not be feasible. However, I can assure the chamber that all options, including legislative action, are part of active consideration by the Government in how to respond. Scotland is already halfway to net zero. We continue to decarbonise faster than the UK average. We remain fully committed to meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2045. In next year's budget alone, we are committing £4.7 billion to support the delivery of our climate change goals. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but the Scottish Government is to blame for this. Do not take it from me. The climate change committee is clear that there are risks in all areas where significant powers have been devolved. Moreover, the CCC has warned that the decision to delay the next climate change plan leaves a significant period without sufficient action or policies to reach the 2030 target. That is a problem that the Scottish Government has inflicted on itself and Scotland. Given the scale of the emergency, will the cabinet secretary commit to introducing a climate change plan before the mandatory deadline of November this year? No, I will not commit to doing that. However, I am extremely proud of the progress that Scotland has made. I noted in my opening answer that we are around halfway to net zero. It is very much that long-term trajectory of decarbonisation that is the most important. We have gotten there through a combination of measures, not least since we declared the climate emergency, completing the world's largest offshore floating wind leasing round, putting into the ground 75 per cent of all the forests that were created in the UK in the past five years in Scotland. We have created four low-emission zones. We have the most comprehensive network of public EV charging anywhere in the UK outside of London and the most generous concessionary travel package when it comes to bus travel. We have banned single-use plastics, 37 per cent of our waters in marine protected areas. All of that has contributed to the progress that has been made to date. I do not underestimate for a second what it does. Nobody any good to underplay is the magnitude of the challenge of the climate emergency. We cannot do it overnight, but the Government remains absolutely committed to taking the action in pursuit of it. To govern is to prioritise, and it is evident that the SNP and Greens have been chasing headlines, not environmental results. Why else would we be in a situation where eight of the past 12 statutory emissions targets have been failed and the 2030 target looks doomed to failure as well? Can the cabinet secretary confirm if the Scottish Government has now abandoned the 2030 target? I was very clear that we are actively considering all options in respect of the views of the committee on climate change as set out today, including legislation. I must remind Maurice Golden a bit of context. In particular, the fact that his party in the UK Government has fought to open coal mines, while failing to commission on and offshore wind in England, led us here the cabinet secretary in Scotland, not least the actions of the UK Government, failing, for example, to prioritise— Cabinet secretary, I would suggest that members who have put questions and who are responding will always have the opportunity to do that when others can hear what we are saying. I was just going to complete the list of failures of the UK Government by noting their inexplicable failure to support the ACORN CCUS project at track 1, and then set that against what the Scottish Tories have done in this Parliament, standing in the way of even modest measures that the Scottish Government has sought to bring forward—low emission zones, workplace parking, DRS, Maurice Golden really ought to do some soul-searching over the contribution that him and his party have made to the progress on climate change. We will get on with delivering for Scotland. The Climate Change Committee previously estimated that, to achieve our climate change targets, Scotland will need an additional £5 billion to £6 billion of investment in low-carbon infrastructure each and every year from 2030. At the same time, Scotland is facing an almost 10 per cent real-terms cut to our UK capital funding between 2023-24 and 2027-28. Will the cabinet secretary affirm that she will continue to call on the UK Government to change course and provide adequate funding to match our climate ambitions here in Scotland? We absolutely will continue to urge the UK Government to provide adequate funding to meet and to rise to the climate emergency. Frustratingly, our calls in respect of the spring budget to address that went completely unanswered, with no additional capital funding in 2024-25. Of course, that comes off the back of a year of unprecedented position changing by the UK Government, reneging on some of its key net zero commitments and, indeed, appearing to fabricate commitments in respect of recycling bins and the numbers that people might be expected to have. It makes a mockery, frankly, of the seriousness of the climate emergency. I would point members to last week's Scottish Fiscal Commission, which made clear that the burden of the UK's net zero target will fall disproportionately in Scotland when it comes to spend, so we will continue to push the UK Government to change course and to ensure that future financial settlements provide us with the resources that we need in order to meet our 2045 target, noting that that is interlinked entirely with the UK's. The Committee on Climate Change report is a damming indictment on this Government's lack of progress on achieving net zero. SNP and Green rhetoric has not been matched by action. It is not just me who thinks that. Today, Mike Robinson, chair of Stop Climate Chaos, a respected organisation with over 60 members has said that the Scottish Government has lost its position as a climate leader. We would like to see the First Minister make an emergency statement to Parliament to set out his response. Will the cabinet secretary agree that the Scottish Government has lost its position as a climate leader since our first climate act 15 years ago, and will the Government bring an emergency statement by the First Minister to respond in full to this Parliament? As the net zero secretary, I am answering an urgent question on these matters now, and I will be very happy to continue to liaise as I do with members from across the chamber, because I understand the importance of it to us. The advice that we have received from the Committee on Climate Change today is very important in respect of that 2030 target. I have already made clear that we are actively considering how we respond, including via legislation, and I will keep Parliament up to date on that. However, the core fact remains that the SNP and our partners in the Greens are utterly committed to tackling climate change. The truth is that no Government, facing the magnitude of the climate emergency, should ever say that they are doing enough. You will not hear that from me, not least until we are at net zero. However, it also does us no good to underplay the magnitude of what we are talking about here—a true transformation right across our economy and society. We will not achieve that overnight, but we remain absolutely committed to doing everything that we can in pursuit of it. The cabinet secretary will recall that she attended the same summit that I did in Bute House with the First Minister, at which Chris Stark trailed the fact that his report would show that we were nowhere near meeting our 2030 target. He did indicate that the biggest drivers of CO2 emissions in Scotland were still buildings and transport. However, this is a Government that, in the budget that was published after that meeting, was reducing insulation budgets by £10 million. It reduced the Just Transition Fund by 76 per cent, and the cabinet secretary will be aware that her Government has presided over 100 million fewer bus journeys each year, eroding our commitment to public transport. Can she see that this is the direction of travel that has led to the report's findings? Will she commit to, in the next negotiations around subsequent Government budgets, to address those targets and deficiencies in funding? We liaise regularly with Chris Stark and members of the Committee on Climate Change, who are statutory advisers. Of course, we would do that. I hope that Alex Cole-Hamilton enjoyed his invitation to Bute House and the very constructive meeting that we had there with Chris Stark. He mentioned a couple of policy areas. Heat and buildings being one that today's report draws out as a success that the Scottish Government has made recently. We have received some 1700 responses to our consultation on a heat and buildings bill that we will now take forward. He also mentioned public transport. I think that I narrated in my opening remarks that we have the most supportive concessionary travel scheme in the UK, with millions of people travelling for free. I draw Alex Cole-Hamilton's attention to the fact that, in this year's budget, in the most difficult financial settlement that we have faced in the devolution era, this Government is providing £4.7 billion towards actions that will support our climate goals. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am disappointed to be standing up today to talk about failed targets for 2030, but I am almost more disappointed that the cabinet secretary has not committed to bringing forward the climate change plan before the deadline of November this year. Surely, if Parliament is to be accorded with the respect that it should be, this plan should be presented at the first possible opportunity to allow all the committees as much time as possible to consider the climate change plan, knowing that we are not going to meet our 2030 targets. If Edward Mountain is disappointed, he should not have stood in the way of low-emission zones, of workplace parking, of the deposit return scheme. If he is disappointed, he should lobby his UK counterparts on their work to fight to open coal mines and fail to deploy on-and-off-shore wind in England, I have been very clear that I need to continue actively considering the outcome of today's report under the current statutory regime. The climate change plan is not due and draft with committees until November, and as I have said, I am actively considering legislation. I will keep Parliament very closely up-to-date on the detail of that. Every party in this Parliament signed up to ambitious climate targets, but they can only be met through bold action to deliver. Scottish Government's plans for warm green homes were praised today by the Climate Change Committee, but the very people who are condemning Government for lack of delivery are the same people who are trying to block progress, spread misinformation on the heating buildings plan, on DERS, on low-emission zones, on workplace parking, and they continue climbing wrecking activities. Is not it time, cabinet secretary, for members on all sides of this chamber to get off the fence and get behind what has to be done? Maggie Chapman is absolutely right, and I hope that members across the chamber were listening to her this afternoon. I would also just emphasise her point in respect of heating buildings and the work that the Government is taking forward—an exceptionally ambitious piece of work to tackle one of the highest emitters that we face in Scotland. She is absolutely right that the CCC pulled that out as a success story, and they have said that it could be a model for approaches across the UK. I hope that the Tories will pay attention to that in England, and I hope that Labour will pay attention to that in Wales. Liam Kerr. Very grateful. Given that the emissions targets are embedded within legislation and the CCC says that they are impossible to achieve, what does the cabinet secretary propose to do to avoid breaching the law? I have said a number of times that I am actively considering all the means by which to respond to the CCC's position, including legislation. The cabinet secretary previously told Parliament that world leaders were contact in the Scottish Government, asking for advice on how to get to net zero. Can the cabinet secretary now tell us who those world leaders were so that we can let them know that the targets have been missed yet again? It will always say more about Douglas Lumsden that he would bring the issues of internet trolls to the floor of this Parliament than it will ever say. Cabinet secretary, sorry. I think that it is really important that when members have put a question, they have the courtesy to enable those responding to do so. It just gives me the opportunity to close my response to Douglas Lumsden by again stating how proud I am of the progress that Scotland has made in that world-leading offshore wind floating round that we have completed in Scotland in 75 per cent of all forests in the UK being created in Scotland in each of the last five years. We are moving first to ban some of the most problematic single-use plastics, having the second most comprehensive suite of public charging networks for EVs in the UK and the most supportive concessionary travel. All of that serves to demonstrate that this Government is extremely serious about tackling climate change. I am under no illusion, however, about the task that is ahead of us. Thank you. That concludes the urgent question. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12566 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau setting out a business programme. I call on George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 12566 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The next item of business is consideration of business motion 12567 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau on timetabling of a bill at stage 1. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. Thank you, Minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, the question is that motion 12567 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of six parliamentary bureau motions. I ask George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 12568 to 12571 on approval of SSIs, 12572 on committee meeting time, and 12573 on designation of a lead committee. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and all moved. Thank you, Minister. The question on those motions will be put at decision time. I am minded that we bring that decision time forward to now under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders. I invite the minister to move such a motion. Happy to help us always, Presiding Officer, moved. Are we content that we bring forward decision time to now? We are all agreed. We are agreed, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 12552, in the name of Lorna Slater, on circular economy Scotland Bill at stage 1, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 12386, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution on the circular economy Scotland Bill, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 12551, in the name of Tom Arthur, on economic activity of public bodies overseas matters Bill UK legislation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, we will move to a vote, and there will be a short suspension until our members to access the digital voting system.