Seòmar agus comataidhean

I reiterate what I said about there being two sides of the coin when it comes to heat in buildings. The first side is that it is very complicated and we require a number of areas to come together, including the supply chain, skills, technology, public funding and private financing. It is a big piece of work and it needs very careful handling. The other side of the coin is that it is absolutely critical to Scotland’s progress on emissions reduction. With buildings making such a large contribution to our emissions, there is no pathway to net zero without doing that work.

On that note, we have consulted on a series of proposals, as you know. We have received 1,700 responses or thereabouts—I apologise if that is not exactly the right figure—and we are currently considering them all and considering how the Government intends to take the matter forward.

Yes. The centrality of decarbonising our buildings to our emissions reduction pathway is such that, without that work, we would have a big gap.

I take those points on board. I absolutely welcome the work of the people’s panel and the work that the NZET Committee has done with it. I have already written to you, convener, with some responses. I take this opportunity to thank the committee and the people’s panel for their contributions and recommendations. It is worth noting that we are due to conduct a review of our public engagement strategy on climate change, which we will do shortly, and the work of the people’s panel will feed into that.

On climate action hubs, I often wrestle with the fact that everything that needs to be done in the name of emissions reduction and support for nature means significant change across the board and on a tight timescale. That can be very beneficial to communities, but it can create stresses. I very much believe that the best climate action is locally driven and locally appropriate, and that it is action from which communities can benefit.

That is the idea behind the climate hub network: it should be locally driven and locally appropriate, with trusted voices, as Ms Lennon was saying, communicating about issues of climate change in communities according to what is needed there.

You are quite right: we are providing around £20 million of funding during this parliamentary session to expand the climate hubs, and that has included £5.5 million this year. That is a significant chunk of money, and it gives us full coverage across the country in a locally appropriate manner. I take on board what you are saying about the hubs ensuring that they are well known, not least by locally elected representatives but also by the communities that they are serving. Kersti Berge and I have discussed in the past how we ensure that there is an appropriate analysis of the impact of hubs in relation to the funding that they are receiving. Kersti might wish to say something more about that—or Bob Doris might want to add something.

Okay—I am just trying to remember the report on the national performance framework; I think that the update report was laid in Parliament on 1 May. It absolutely included a new commitment to climate action, which is about recognising the climate emergency and the extent to which, as I said earlier, climate change is at the core of decision making in Government.

If I remember correctly, it also brings us into line with the United Nations sustainable development goals, which the national performance framework was always intended to mirror. I think that those have moved on since ours have. I am very pleased to see the new target. I think that the Finance and Public Administration Committee is the lead committee for consideration of that, and it will be debated by the Parliament in due course.

Yes. We were absolutely clear about that. Everybody who has heard the First Minister in recent days will have noted him making it clear that, while public finances are strained in the manner that they are, the cut makes decision making for Government much more difficult.

The spend that is required to tackle climate change is significant for the public purse—I have described it as being eye-watering in certain circumstances. Of course, that leads us to the fact that the public purse alone cannot meet that spend, so we will have to find ways of leveraging responsible private funding.

The cut of up to 9 per cent to our capital budget over the coming years is very damaging indeed. We have talked about heat in buildings. We know that doing what needs to be done in that regard has a significant capital cost. The cut puts the Scottish Government under significant pressure. We also see the impact manifesting in forestry. I know that, during the budget, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands grappled enormously with the issue of capital funding for forestry. That is important to me, because it is critical to the emissions reduction plan.

I note that the Scottish Fiscal Commission recently reported on the extent to which Scotland is more exposed to high capital costs, particularly in the natural environment. That is critical to what we are trying to do on climate change, yet it is made so much more difficult by the UK Government not having inflation-proofed the capital budget and what that means for us.

Yes, I would absolutely say so. Again, a lot of that comes from the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s welcome analysis. Although I am saying that the costs of climate action are high, the SFC started off by making the really important point that the costs of inaction are so much higher. It is not a choice of whether we do it; we must do it. The SFC also pointed out that, because of the current fiscal framework, if Scotland is particularly exposed to a climate event, such as a flooding event, we do not have the flexibility to respond to that in the way that we might want to.

You asked about the interconnectedness of Scotland and the UK’s objectives, and referred to the substantial weight that falls to Scotland in terms of costs because of how much we need to do in the natural environment. On that, forestry is the key example, although I would include peatland restoration, too. Those are critical to the UK’s path to net zero, so I should very much like UK ministers to bear that in mind.

My focus just now is on fulfilling the obligations under the act, which are to publish our report, consult on it and report back. While we are doing that, I am not considering an independent review. I am also not currently considering an independent review, because it is the Government’s view that the reports—plural—that we published fulfil our obligations under section 41 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021—the continuity act, as I will refer to it. However, the process is on-going and, as I have said, the feedback that we have received and the evidence that the committee has taken is all very much under consideration just now.

No, I do not think that the stakeholders are wrong; their views and their close concern for Scotland’s oceans and seas are very important to me. I value their input, not least because citizen science forms a really important part of the work that we do on marine protection.

There are a couple of points to make. First, on the substance of the issue of marine protection, we are currently taking forward—albeit that it is, regretfully, somewhat delayed—our work to complete management measures within marine protected areas. The committee will know that we have 37 per cent coverage, with management measures in some of those areas, and we are now working to complete that in the inshore and offshore areas. We are also working to protect priority marine features. A huge amount of work is on-going on all that to identify the areas and the features that require protection and to assess the socioeconomic impact of whatever management measures are consulted on. I hope to make progress on all that very soon.

To put that in the context of the original question, which was about environmental governance, our report—I am still reflecting on the feedback on it—reflected what I think is an appropriate balance between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary in Scotland. The Government’s view is that that is currently serving well the issues of environmental law.

I am glad that you have raised that point, Ms Lennon. The Scottish Government’s position has not changed. I am picking up that work from Ms Slater, and I know that she was closely involved with it. David Signorini and I were discussing it prior to coming to the committee. I know that you have undertaken your consultation on the proposal. At the same time, we are awaiting confirmation on the position from the EU.

David, if there is anything further that we can usefully update Ms Lennon on today, I ask you to do so. Otherwise, I can confirm that the Government’s position has not changed with Ms Slater’s departure.

Yes, that is correct. I tried to set that out earlier but I appreciate that it is complicated. Part of what the legislation needs to do is to change the date for when the climate change plan is due. It is currently due in draft by November, but that is under a framework that cannot be met.