 The next item of business is topical questions, question 1, Senator White. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government about the welfare of people held at the Engavel Detention Centre in light of recent protests held there. The operation of the Invaigal Immigration Removal Centre is reserved, and it is in the responsibility of the Home Office. However, following reports of a hunger strike at Invaigal, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners' Rights wrote to the Home Secretary on 26 March 2015 to raise his concerns about the situation and a range of other issues, including indefinite detention, living conditions at Invaigal and the level of contact with immigration casework. A response was received from a Home Office official as it was during the pre-election period, and this was not satisfactory as it did not address the points raised. Therefore, the Cabinet Secretary wrote again to the Home Secretary on 28 May to urge her to reconsider the issues. A response to that letter has not yet been received, and the Cabinet Secretary will advise a member and other interested parties when the response is received and will push through the matter further if necessary. I thank the minister very much for that reply, which is very interesting. The minister will also be aware that the S2C, political and religious leaders, also asked to meet with detainees, in fact, wrote to Invaigal as well. Although the manager was willing to facilitate that, the request was refused by the Home Office, causing great concern, as you have raised in your answer. Can I ask, therefore, when you are looking at the reply when it comes, or will you raise the issue of the fact that these groups cannot gain access to the detainees in Dengaville and pressurise the Home Office or whoever is available there to ensure that those individuals gain access to the detainees in Dengaville? I very much agree with the member. The Scottish Government would very much support those groups getting access to the facilities at Dengvaigal and talking to those detained there. It was actually one of the issues that the cabinet secretary raised on his letter. He did point out that the delegation had asked permission to meet the detainee. He said, I urge you to grant permission for this visit. On the letter that he received back from the Home Office official, permission, as the member rightly says, was refused and said that under normal circumstances, access to immigration removal is limited to organisations exercising statutory duties, social and legal visitors and other visitor groups. That is not satisfactory. The cabinet secretary on the letter on 28 May has again urged the Home Secretary to reconsider her decision and allow permission to those groups to enter Dengvaigal. That is very encouraging. When you talk about statutory duties, any groups religious or otherwise will look at the welfare and look after the welfare of detainees is surely, in my mind, a statutory duty. I look forward to that answer. Minister, you will probably be aware that the UK is the only country in the EU that detains people indefinitely. Would you therefore support recommendations of the all-party group on refugees migration that there is a timeline of 28 days that anyone can be held in detention? Would you also agree with the 500 people who demonstrated in Saturday, including myself, that Dengvaigal is no fit place to detain anyone? I very much agree with Sandra White that Dengvaigal is not a fit place to detain anyone. I also support the 500 people who held the demonstration in Saturday, and I long appreciate that it has been something that Sandra White has long campaigned against in Dengvaigal. The Government is deeply concerned about the indefinite length of time that people can be detained there. We do absolutely understand that that causes anxiety, stress, fear and health issues for people who are simply exercising their right to seek a place of safety where they are free from persecution. The Scottish Government supports the recent recommendation of the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and migration that there should be a timeline of 28 days and the length of time anyone can be held in immigration detention. We believe that, further, presumption should be in favour of community-based resolutions and against detention. Again, the cabinet secretary raised that issue in his letter to the Home Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the minister said, for many, many years now, representatives of this Parliament have been refused any information at all about Dengvaigal, even though it sits in Scotland. Can I ask the minister if she is aware of any local service involvement, such as NHS Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire Council, Police Scotland locally, in relation to the state of health and the state of wellbeing of those held? I think that the member makes a very good point. She illustrates very clearly that we have a situation here in Scotland that is not in the control or the power of this Government. Therefore, it is a kind of isolated with its own almost rules and regulations that are not of those of the Government. As far as NHS services go and health services, what we have been told is that those services are provided, but they are commissioned by the Home Office. There is no direct link between the Scottish Government and any commission of services is simply by the Home Office to the service provider. I know that Linda Fabiani will probably be aware of this, and it is a situation that is not satisfactory. I know one that she has campaigned on for some time. It is something that we can raise again with the Home Office, but it is somewhere that we have not had a great deal of encouraging responses so far. To ask the Scottish Government how it is responding to the serious risk of international disrepute if it continues to miss annual climate change targets. Scotland has set itself stretching annual targets on our pathway to a 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and we have been open and honest about the challenges that we face in achieving the reductions that climate science tells us are necessary. However, we are making progress and our efforts have been widely acknowledged, such as by the United Kingdom Committee on Climate Change in its most recent progress report, and the member will be aware that the greenhouse gas emissions statistics for 2013 will be published next Tuesday, a week today, and the Minister for Climate Change will deliver a statement to Parliament that afternoon, setting out the Government's response. The language that has been used and quoted in the press from the internal audit report on the Scottish Government's climate change programme is deeply worrying, not just the suggestion that the real concern is international repute, which I hope we can all agree should not be our primary focus, but language that seems to imply an acceptance that the climate change targets are unreachable. The current programme's inability to achieve targets year by year elsewhere refers to the currently unachievable annual statutory targets. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the annual climate change targets are achievable? What I can say to the member is that we recognise that the targets have to be achieved and that we are taking every step possible to achieve them. I think that we all accepted that when we put that innovative trailblazing act through this Parliament in the early years of the act, we are going to be particularly challenging in the context of the annual targets, which is quite unique to this Parliament in terms of the annual targets. Therefore, we are finding the annual targets challenging, but that is against a backdrop where the baseline of data was revised and had the targets themselves been revised, or had we measured them against the former baseline at the time of the passing of the act, we would have achieved the annual targets each and every year that we have supposed to have done so. We recognise those challenges, but we are making good progress and it is still the situation, as it has been, that international commentators think that Scotland is leading the way in reducing our emissions and tackling climate change. As I said to Patrick Harvie when the statement that the Parliament is delivered next week will make available more information about our future plans. I question how convincing it is to describe legislation as trailblazing if it has not in fact blazed a trail. It has not been accompanied with the transformation of policy changes that are necessary to achieve the targets, and we are now falling further behind. We are likely here next week that we have fallen further behind still. The climate change act also requires the Government to begin to take a focus on the consumption-based emissions. We heard just a couple of months ago that, taking into account consumption-based emissions, Scotland's carbon footprint is going up, not down. Does the cabinet secretary accept that when next week's failure is acknowledged, it is going to have to be accompanied with a transformational policy agenda if it would have the remotest chance of getting back on track in the foreseeable future? It is the case that the long-term trend shows a substantial emissions reduction of just under 27 per cent since 1990. It is also the case that we are leading as far as western Europe is concerned in terms of the majority of countries. Therefore, it is the case that Scotland is trailblazing and we are ensuring international leadership. As we have already accepted to admit, it is also challenging in terms of the early years of the annual targets for the reasons that outlined my initial response. In terms of policies moving forward, this Parliament and the Scottish Government, in particular, are giving a great deal of attention to what policies are required to ensure that we can meet our targets. The new cabinet sub-committee on climate change, of course, has met a number of times over the past few months to ensure that we are focused on developing the new policies and proposals that are required to meet those very ambitious targets. Mr Harvey referred to the question of consumption, but looking at the climate change committee's report, it suggests that consumption in 2012 was 8 per cent below the 2012 target level and only one TWH below the 2020 level. Cabinet Secretary, any further comments on the need to reduce consumption? Well, yes. In terms of reducing consumption, that is the focus of the policies and proposals that we have at the moment, where they are not delivering, of course. Our objectives as a Government bring forward even more ambitious policies and proposals that at least achieve the equivalent of those that are not delivering or exceed them. That is where we are devoting a lot of energy at the moment. I reiterate, and I think that Rod Campbell highlighted a couple of the statistics. We are making good progress and we are showing leadership and we are ahead of many other countries in Western Europe and, indeed, across these islands. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to reassure us that he is still committed to those targets? When does he think that we are going to meet any of the annual targets? When do you expect to meet any of the annual targets? When we hear the statement next week about this year's target, will he be bringing forward new policies or new investment to deliver on those targets? They were crossed by all of the chamber. There is complete cross-party agreement, and as the SNP is now a majority Government, you have the opportunity with your leadership to bring forward new action. I can assure Mr Boyack that we want to demonstrate that leadership. As the audit report referred to by Patrick Harvie highlighted, there are reasons as to why the annual targets so far have not been met due to the revised baseline against which they are measured. I think that most people understand the challenges in early years in terms of those annual targets. As I said before, next week the Minister for Climate Change will deliver a statement to Parliament in response to the greenhouse gas emissions statistics for 2013, which will be made public at that time. Therefore, the minister will outline the Government's response to those announcements and the policies and proposals that we are considering. I share the concerns that the Scottish Government's credibility with other countries is on the line, if it continues to miss annual targets. Reducing the waste of heating from homes must continue to be a priority. What more can ministers do to ensure that all homes in Scotland are properly insulated? As Jamie McGregor will be aware, he highlights an important factor in reducing emissions in Scotland, which is waste heat. We have already taken steps to tackle energy efficiency in this country and the Government has brought forward ambitious proposals in the past few years. However, those conversations among ministers continue, and the specific issues of energy efficiency and tackling waste heat are very high on their agenda. As we agree, as Jamie McGregor highlights, tackling that is not only good for household bills and people's pockets and cutting down the cost of energy usage, but will help us to reduce our emissions as a country that achieves our targets.