 I'm pleased to update Parliament today on the progress that Scotland is making in tackling climate change. Scotland's transition to a low-carbon economy is well under way. In 1990, Scotland emitted 76 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Statistics published today show that in 2016 that number had almost halved to 39 million tonnes. That's a reduction of 49 per cent. Scotland continues to outperform the UK as a whole in delivering long-term emission reductions, and among Western European countries in the EU, 15 only Sweden has done better. This achievement has been a national endeavour requiring effort across the whole of Scotland in every community, home and organisation. Today's statistics are testament to everyone who has made changes to their personal or business behaviour. Those changes are making a real difference. In terms of how we are progressing against Scotland's current statutory targets under this Parliament's 2009 act, the statistics published this morning show that emissions are down 45 per cent. Those targets are set on an adjusted emissions basis, which reflects the operation of the EU emissions trading scheme in Scotland. On this basis, Scotland has not only met the 2016 annual target but is again exceeding the level of the current interim 2020 target of a 42 per cent reduction. Given that our existing statutory targets lie at the most ambitious end of current international pledges to 2030, and we are making sustained progress in meeting them, I am sure that you will agree with me that this is good news. However, there is always scope for improvement in the current reporting of climate targets. For this reason, the new climate change bill proposes that all future targets will be set and reported using actual emissions rather than the emissions adjusted for the EU emissions trading scheme. A further issue that members will recall from previous years is the technical revisions to the data that happens as measurement science evolves. Decisions about these data revisions are made at a UK level in line with UN guidelines. As has become customary, the statistics published today contain substantial revisions to the past data, mainly in the forestry sector. Those revisions have worked in our favour, effectively making targets relatively easier to meet than was the case last year. However, in most previous years revisions have gone the other way. They have made targets harder to meet, and overall the effective revisions to date has made those targets harder. That illustrates how important it is to ensure that target outcomes reflect on-the-ground actions and are not determined purely by technical changes. The new bill implements recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change on this issue. The measurement methods used for reporting target outcomes will be frozen from the time that the target levels were last reviewed. That will help to ensure that technical changes alone do not determine whether targets are met or indeed missed. Those shifts will improve transparency and enable government to be held to account, something that I know that Parliament is always keen to do. The statistics published this morning demonstrate that Scotland is halfway through its low-carbon transition. We must build on that momentum and the global consensus enshrined in the UN-Paris agreement and commit to doing even more. Through our climate change bill, we are not only providing solutions to our country's needs and interests, but also putting Scotland in the global vanguard. We are one of the first countries to set new statutory targets based on independent expert advice in line with the global aims of the Paris agreement. The bill will mean that Scotland has the world's most ambitious statutory 2050 target based on domestic actions alone. The interim targets for 2020, 2030 and 2040 will be the most ambitious statutory targets for those years anywhere in the world. Scotland will also remain the only country to have statutory annual targets, allowing Parliament to hold Governments to account each and every year. That means that there can be no delay to increasing action. There is no doubt that those new statistics demonstrate substantial and substantive progress, but they also show where we need to be mindful of consequences. Since 1990, energy supply emissions are down 69 per cent, and waste and industry have also seen substantial reductions. In particular, the closure of the Longannet power station in March 2016 has had a substantial impact. The move to low-carbon energy is the right one, but we must also reflect on those who were employed at Longannet. That shows very clearly that the low-carbon transition involves and will continue to involve very real impacts on people, jobs and local economies. There will be many co-benefits, but there will also be genuine challenges. That is why we need to take a balanced approach to meeting our climate, social and economic priorities. The transition to a low-carbon economy requires transformative change, but that change must always also be fair and inclusive. It is intended that the Just Transition Commission, which this Government will bring into being, will explore those admittedly difficult issues and advise on continuing the transition in a way that promotes cohesion and equality. The form that the commission will take and its membership are currently being considered and will be announced later this year. The emissions statistics also show where we need to make more progress, particularly transport and buildings. This Government is already focused on tackling those issues. The Switched On Scotland road map outlines plans to increase uptake of electric vehicles and Scotland is taking the lead in promoting the use of ultra-low-emission vehicles and phasing out the need for new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2032. The route map for energy-efficient Scotland, which was published last month, sets out our vision that by 2040 all buildings in Scotland are warmer, greener and more efficient. Turning to the issue of net zero, let me be absolutely clear. This Government wants to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible. Crucially, I want to get there through responsible, credible legislation, plans and action. We need to maintain Scotland's momentum because, without a doubt, the actions that are needed to reduce emissions in the future will be much tougher than those of previous decades. I do not want Scotland to just reduce its emissions. I want us to reduce emissions in a way that supports sustainable and inclusive growth and a fairer society. The transformation to a low-carbon economy must benefit all. Otherwise, it could commit Scotland to approaches that will reduce food production, limit connectivity and jeopardise jobs. That sort of dislocation would be neither responsible nor sustainable in the long term. I also believe that Scotland's transformation should be built upon the strengths of this Parliament's 2009 act. Setting a target beyond 90 per cent now would mean reducing the integrity of our approach, for example by purchasing international credits, removing sectors from our targets or relying on future technology that cannot be set out now for scrutiny. For those reasons, the bill supports our commitment to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible but does not set a fixed date for that. The bill ensures that there is a requirement to have regard to the regular independent expert advice that will be provided on target levels, including the specific issue of a net zero date. As soon as the evidence indicates that there is a credible pathway to net zero, we will use the mechanisms in the bill to set the earliest achievable date in law. The moral, scientific and economic case for global action on climate change is clear and Scotland has risen to this challenge. The statistics published this morning clearly demonstrate the strong progress that Scotland continues to make in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The actions to date are working, the commitments already made and in development will help to make further and faster progress. The proposals in this Government's climate change bill will help Scotland to remain a world leader on tackling climate change and enable Scotland to become a fair and just low-carbon society. Donald Cameron, to be followed by Claudia Beamish, is just under 20 minutes for questions. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance notice of our statement and also refer to renewable energy and agriculture in my register of interests. As a party committed to protecting the environment and tackling climate change, the Scottish Conservatives welcomed today's announcement and the progress that is made on climate emissions. We specifically welcomed the announcement of the Just Transition Commission. However, the publication of these statistics provides us with an opportunity to discuss broader issues surrounding climate change. It is important to acknowledge that, in many quarters, it has been felt that the climate change plan and the recently published bill are not robust or ambitious enough. Similarly, we note that, although significant progress has been made in bringing down emissions in energy production, there has been little movement in transport and residential emissions as, to be fair, the cabinet secretary recognises in her statement. However, those benches agree with Stop Climate Care Scotland, which says that we must use that opportunity to discuss what more we can do to tackle climate change. Therefore, I ask the cabinet secretary what more can be done to reduce emissions in areas such as transport, which is the largest emitting sector. Will the Government use that as an opportunity to strengthen the bill so that we can meet our climate change obligations? I thank Donald Cameron for his question. I have outlined in the statement why I believe that what we are proposing in relation to the climate change bill is ambitious. I acknowledge that sectors of the economy have not made the same strong level of progress as other sectors, but I do not suppose that any of that comes as an enormous surprise to anybody. What more can be done—I think that there is a great deal more that is already being done. I remind members in the chamber that those are the stats that relate to 2016. Since 2016, there have been some very considerable changes in terms of transport policy, huge commitments made and a lot of work currently being done on, for example, low-emission zones. Now, it is not my portfolio area of interest, but I know that a transport bill has just been published yesterday. I expect that there will be quite a vigorous debate within the context of that going through Parliament, which will relate to some of the things that we are talking about today. I believe that, in terms of transport, the Government has already made some significant commitments that will change the future in terms of transport emissions when we come to see the 2017 stats and the 2018 stats and the 2019 stats. I think that there is a tendency to forget that there is a two-year time lag in those stats. The same with buildings. There is a very big commitment made by the Government in terms of energy efficiency over a number of years, and that will begin to be reflected in future stats. There is a lot of work being done to increase the ambition, and it is likely to have a significant effect on emissions reductions precisely in the sectors in which we think that, at the moment, there is still a lot to do. Claudia Beamish will be followed by Mr Stewart Stevenson. I thank the cabinet secretary for his price at the statement, and I welcome the fact that we have met this year's targets. It is a complex picture, and this gives confidence in the possibilities of what Scotland can achieve when climate policy is driven by ambitious long-term and interim targets. Will the cabinet secretary look again at the claim that the draft bill's targets are the world's most ambitious as they stand at the moment? Much of the emissions reduction is from the deployment of renewables in the electricity sector, and I would like to know what lessons the cabinet secretary thinks we can learn from that, and how we can apply it to sectors in which emissions are not yet falling enough—transport, residential buildings and agriculture—which he does not highlight as one of the areas of concern in the statement. The Scottish Government could be considering, in our view, more robust policy to support farmers and mandatory action. Will the cabinet secretary commit today to dialogue with the cabinet secretary for the rural economy to address the issue? I thank Claudia Beamish for her question. I will not repeat what I have just said about transport and buildings. I do not see much purpose in just being repeating there. I am glad that the member raised the issue of agriculture, because one of the difficulties of agriculture is that most of the emissions in agriculture are not actually carbon emissions, but residual emissions such as methane. The tackling of those emissions is a very different matter than the decarbonising that takes place, for example in the energy sector that she referred to and wanted to use as an example. It is probably fair to say that we will decarbonise energy much sooner than we will be able to reduce emissions from agriculture, because the total reduction of emissions in agriculture would effectively be no food production. We cannot be in a position where that is what we are talking about. She can rest assured that I have vigorous conversations frequently with my colleague in the rural economy portfolio, but I understand and accept some of the challenges that are in the agriculture sector and will be in the future if we set targets that are far too high and unable to be achieved other than by reducing food production in Scotland, which in my view would not assist us either nationally or indeed globally. Stuart Stevenson, to be followed by Maurice Golden. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could outline her view on trade agreements after Brexit in the effect that they might have on our approach to climate change, especially with regard to the relatively recent departure of the United States from the Paris agreement, which suggests that the administration there has no interest in understanding of the effects of climate change. I could say that that is answered by Stuart Stevenson. It is the case that we may be in a situation post Brexit where trade agreements that the UK might arrive at are not ones that will help us in terms of reduction of emissions. We do not know what is going to happen. We are not certain what they will hold. They could end up leading to increased emissions from the goods and services that we import for, for example, the reason that Stuart Stevenson has alluded to. The truth is that membership of the EU and its single market provide Scotland with access to climate-friendly trade with our neighbouring countries, which I think that everybody would accept is the most sensible way to proceed. Maurice Golden, to be followed by Alex Rowley. Given the closure of Longannate, has the Scottish Government considered what impact the transition to a decarbonised energy supply might have in the event of a black-start event? I think that the reason that we are talking about the Just Transition Commission is because we want to make absolutely sure that what we are doing in all sectors, including the energy sector, does manage things for our population socially, economically and in terms of emissions reductions and targets. What the member is alluding to is the kind of thing that is almost impossible to factor into what the future might hold. That is why we have to be incredibly careful how we plan forward. I think that we have done incredibly well in terms of the energy sector, but the closure of Longannate shows a sort of microcosm of some of the things that can happen, and that can go wrong in the future. I am not saying that that was the wrong thing, but it is jobs, it is a local economy, it is an important aspect of how we plan for the future and the inability to have a 2024 site. We all wish that we could, but we do not. Alex Rowley, to follow on from that, the figures are the first to show the impact of Longannate closure. That is being good for our climate, but the only just transition support that the Scottish Government offered was at the moment of crisis for those workers and for those communities. Moving to lower emissions requires us to plan and support workers in the just transition stages, as the cabinet secretary has said. Does that not mean that we need a just transition commission that is long-term and with a powerful legal basis in the climate change bill, and that we also need an industrial strategy that takes us to a low carbon future in consultation with affected workers and communities across Scotland? The just transition commission will, when it is set up, provide the kind of conversation that the member, undoubtedly, as I do, thinks is absolutely necessary. Longannate is a case study of what might be required. The member is asking that we put the just transition commission into statute, but I do not think that he is taking on board how long it would then take to get that commission up and running if we do that. I hope to be making an announcement later this year, and that would be considerably in advance of any statutorily-based just transition commission that he might envisage. I would rather get us moving sooner rather than later. As we have heard, today's statistics show that Scotland is outperforming many other countries and in doing so providing a leadership example. However, can I ask the cabinet secretary how important a role international co-operation has been and will be in tackling climate change? International co-operation on climate change is absolutely vital. That is happening through the UN Paris agreement. We are proud to be one of the first countries to enshrine the increased commitment that is required by the Paris agreement into domestic legislation. Following the introduction of the new climate change bill, members might wish to know that we have received a letter from Laurent Fabius, president of the Paris climate conference, welcoming the bill as a, quote, very positive step, unquote, and quote, a concrete application of the Paris agreement, unquote. International co-operation is not just about the actual moves towards climate change mitigation. It is also about climate justice. This Government has put a great deal of money into a climate justice fund, helping to mitigate and tackle the effects of climate change in the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the world. Every country needs to decarbonise their own economy and society in a way that works for them. Many of the changes to technology and infrastructure that will be necessary to achieve net zero emissions can only be developed with multinational co-operation. The Scottish Government collaborates with other high-ambition states and regions through the Under 2 coalition, and the First Minister has signed an MOU with the Governor of California as a fellow member of the coalition. All of that international action is incredibly important, but I am particularly pleased to see the new climate change bill being given that CODOS and that credibility by somebody as important as Laurent Fabius. Following on from that question, cabinet secretary has spoken a lot over the last 18 months about the need to keep pace with the European Union. However, if the EU set a net zero target, as is being discussed by both the European Parliament and the Commission at the moment, will the Scottish Government use that as a reason to set a net zero target for Scotland? I think that Mark Ruskell is in that category of people who want me to have 2024 sites. There is a lot of discussion around net zero, and I understand that. I understand why people want to have those conversations, but a closer look at what is proposed in various jurisdictions suggests a widely varying approach to how that net zero might be reached. In many cases, not legislatively, and in other cases, by excluding all sorts of things that we do include in our legislation. The EU may or may not come out within the future. I do not know. I cannot be certain. However, I will follow their discussions very carefully indeed, as I would expect all Governments to do, and I would hope that they are also looking at the conversations that we are having. I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. I welcome the confirmation that we have achieved the target, but I also thank her for her recognition of the significant amount of work that still needs to be done in the areas of building and of transport. She pointed earlier in response to Donald Cameron about the lag effect. In relation to transport, it is fair to say that the Government's proposals on tax cuts for airlines and the support for the third runway at Heathrow are what have happened in the interim since those figures were applied. Why should aviation get a free pass? What message does it send to those in other sectors who are working hard to make emissions savings to achieve the targets that she has set out? If aviation sits within the transport sector, I would anticipate that it is one of the sectors in which I certainly hope that technological changes in the future will make things considerably more manageable in terms of emissions reductions. However, it is important to keep aviation emissions in perspective. Aviation currently accounts for less than 5 per cent of total Scottish emissions based on those new 2016 stats. There is a challenge around aviation, but some of the things that I have said in my responses earlier about growing the economy and about impacts have to be taken on board in respect of that as well. It is important that people consider that if there is to be a challenge in terms of aviation, how many fewer flights do we want coming in and out of Scotland? How many fewer flights do we want internally in Scotland? Those are things that would have to be addressed by some of those questions. I am not saying that to dismiss what the member has said. I know that the member is asking a very genuine question, but there is a genuine conversation that needs to be had about Scotland's wider economy and connectivity as well as the emissions reductions aspect of that. Technical emissions reductions can be achieved, but that would exclude some of the economic social consequences of those reductions. We need to think very carefully into the future about how that is all managed. The cabinet secretary will be well aware that some organisations and NGOs have called on the Scottish Government to set a net zero target in law now, as Sweden has done. I note her comments earlier regarding a credible pathway to net zero. However, should Scotland be minded to adopt the legislative approach of Sweden, what would be the financial impact on the Scottish Government's budget and the further impact on our economy, if it did? It is important to point out that the 2009 legislation set out a very distinctive Scottish approach to the low-carbon transition. That included a strong focus on fair and just action to reduce emissions here in Scotland and statutory annual targets to ensure that Governments are held to account each and every year on the way to 2050. Scotland is the only country in the world to do that. Our approach is working. We continue to outperform the UK as a whole in delivering emissions reductions and to rank highly internationally. We could adopt Sweden's legislative approach. Of course we could. We could put a date on the bill, but it would also mean removing our annual targets because they do not have annual targets. It would perhaps mean substantially reducing the ambition and coverage of our interim targets and allowing for up to 15 per cent of the final target to be met through international credits. The financial impact would be in the region of £15 billion over the period until 2050—money that would need to be found from other areas of Scottish Government budgets. It is not the case that one approach to targets is better than the other, and I applaud Sweden's ambition. However, this Government's view is that the distinctive features of Scotland's 2009 act should be retained and strengthened. I am conscious that we have four more questioners—not at a love time, we might not get them all in—but David Stewart will be followed by Stuart McMillan. The cabinet secretary stated that all future targets will be set and reported using actual emissions, not EU emission trading scheme adjusted statistics. Is this changed due to the UK's likely withdrawal from the EU ETS? Not directly, no. We wanted to do this because we think that it is the right thing to do in terms of transparency and accountability. It does not change our support for participation in the EU ETS in any way. Emissions trading is devolved under the 2008 UK Climate Change Act, and we hope to be fully involved in the decision-making around EU ETS. Regrettably, despite repeated efforts to get responses out of the UK Government, we have not been able to have any formal discussion about that. However, the shift to actual emissions accounting under the bill is about improving transparency and reporting only, and it is not linked to what might or might not happen to the EU ETS. Stuart McMillan will be followed by Fillionaire Carson. Can the cabinet secretary tell me what would be the resultant effect in jobs and in traditional industries and, therefore, local economies, bearing in mind that some organisations have portrayed the 90 per cent target by 2050 as not being ambitious? A 90 per cent reduction target for all greenhouse gases means net zero emissions of carbon dioxide in Scotland by 2050. I think that some people have overlooked that, but the 90 per cent overall target includes net zero on carbon by then. It is interesting that New Zealand, for example, who has a headline indication that they want to go to net zero, is consulting, and one of the things that they are consulting on is net zero on carbon only. I think that there is perhaps a bit of a misunderstanding around and about this discussion. I think that it is important for us to say that. According to the Committee on Climate Change, achieving 90 per cent reduction in all greenhouse gases will require the near total decarbonisation by 2050 of energy supply, ground transport and buildings. That is what we are anticipating. That means transformational change and challenging actions. By far, the largest source of emissions in the CCC's 2050 scenario—at 2050—will be agriculture, which, as I have already said, is not the same as other sectors and needs to be recognised. It cannot produce food without emitting greenhouse gases such as methane. Setting a net zero target for all greenhouse gases before the evidence exists to support that could mean reducing the amount of food produced in Scotland without reducing greenhouse gases at the global level. Finlay Carson. Overall, the statement released today shows a positive trend in reducing emissions, and my colleagues and I in these benches welcome that. However, the house and emissions continue to rise. Does not this show that there is more work for us to do on insulating our homes, particularly in rural areas? The route map for energy-efficient Scotland published last month did not suggest anything to address the unique rural housing problems. While the Government heeded this Parliament's target for an EPCC target, an increase capital investment in home and energy efficiency. That is not again my portfolio area, but the route map for energy-efficient Scotland, which was published on 2 May, sets out our vision for all buildings in Scotland. For Scotland's homes, we propose that by 2040 all homes are improved so that they achieve at least an energy performance certificate rating of Ban C for technically feasible and cost effective. Emma Harper. Cabinet Secretary, you may be aware that there are effective solutions and efficient measures to reduce wasteful and harmful emissions from cattle and sheep and also slurry. Such solutions are available in the form of yeast and also bacterial-based products. I ask the cabinet secretary what plans does she have to enlist the expertise of farm industry specialists to support further agricultural emissions reduction and to continue our progress towards a low-carbon economy? That is an area that we are addressing through the agricultural chapter of the climate change plan, specifically policy outcome 4. There are numerous options on the market. Earlier this year, climate exchange published a report commissioned by the Scottish Government and produced by Ricardo Energy and Environment entitled, reduced emissions from the use and storage of manure and slurry, which would seem to be absolutely on point with what the member is asking about. The report does look at the options available to Scottish farmers and will help to inform discussions. If she hasn't been already aware of it, I would commend it to her. I omitted to draw members' attention to my register of interests in relation to a small shareholding in a wind farm. Thank you, Mr Stevenson. You have now corrected that. Thank you. That concludes our statement on greenhouse gas emissions. We will now move on to the next item of business, which is a statement by Shirley-Anne Somerville on student support. Again, the minister will take questions at the end of her statement. I will encourage members who wish to ask a question to press their request to speak buttons as soon as possible.