Seòmar agus comataidhean

As the convener said, it would be ideal if we could ask the UK Government our questions. Do you have any sense that DEFRA is putting in place those steps? Is it making substantial progress towards step 1?

Will the member give way?

I point Mr Kerr to where investment in our home energy and other energy systems comes from at the moment: it is a mixture of predominantly private finance, personal finance, and investment through mortgages and housing. It will also come through public finance. That is the blend of investment that will deliver the £33 billion. I agree that it is challenging and the Government has to face that challenge, but it will lay out that pathway.

Labour has said that it will not reverse Sunak’s weakening of targets for household heating, should it form the next UK Government. That would condemn another generation to growing up in fuel poverty. I warn Labour about not jumping on to false solutions, such as hydrogen for home heating, in an attempt to surf the waves of uncertainty that have been created by the Tories. Studies have shown that hydrogen would be two to three times more expensive than heat pumps, and it would not be ready for more than a decade. That would worsen fuel poverty and it is one of the reasons why the Scottish Government is focusing the deployment of hydrogen on hard-to-abate industries instead of homes.

Let me make some progress; I have already taken one intervention from the member.

The announcement by the Prime Minister will have serious ramifications for Scotland’s next climate change plan. The cabinet secretary is right to seek urgent, updated advice from the UK Climate Change Committee—I am sure that that advice will be treated with respect, unlike the disgraceful way that senior UK Government ministers misinterpreted and then rubbished their own advisers’ work in public over the past week.

We need that leadership and consistency from a next Westminster Government that works with the devolved Administrations to keep ambition high while supporting everybody through the transition, with all the challenges and opportunities that come with it. A genuine four-nations approach is needed to deliver what the cabinet secretary talked about at the beginning of the debate: a collective mission, with all Administrations coming together to work with the UK Climate Change Committee to find a pathway to real zero. The solutions are there—this is not rocket science—but only a lack of political will can hold us back.

This year’s climate week marks a tipping point in the climate emergency, because 2023 is the year when the climate emergency arrived on the doorstep of so many communities across the world and when fire and flood have taken the lives and livelihoods of so many people. It has been impossible to ignore. This is the first year when I have looked at my own children and felt fearful for what the decades ahead will be like for them to actually live through.

We must also not forget the impact that climate change is having on the natural world. Increasing temperatures, extreme weather and invasive species are threatening ecosystems with collapse. This year has been one in which videos of climate protesters slowing cars have been watched alongside videos of cars being swept away by flash floods. We are at a tipping point in public consciousness, but it is also a dangerous time—a time when those who feel powerless or disbelieving can turn to dangerous conspiracies and denialism about climate and even about democracy itself.

We need honest leadership about the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, free from the agendas of vested interests who wish to slow or reverse change. The reason why many people felt disillusioned by the Prime Minister’s climate climbdown last week was because there was not a shred of honest leadership in that announcement. Standing at a plinth that read

“Long-term Decisions for a Brighter Future”,

he announced short-term decisions that will destroy the future. He described the need for change, and for a second I almost felt quite hopeful, but then he cancelled or delayed the programmes that are delivering the change that is necessary—the very policies that he was elected to deliver. Policies that had been extensively consulted on for years were cancelled or delayed. He then, incredibly, scrapped a range of policies, from compulsory car sharing to meat taxes, that do not even exist. It was a level of doublethink that has not been seen since “1984”.

The Government’s motion today rightly acknowledges that Scotland is halfway towards net zero, but the hardest part is still to come. Achieving net zero will need a level of political ambition, collaboration and leadership across the UK that we have not yet seen. There are genuine challenges, particularly as Governments look to scale up delivery in areas such as EV charging, peatland restoration and heat in buildings. Supply chains and finance need to be built up quickly.

The push of strong regulation needs to be matched with the pull of new markets. Opposition members are right to ask searching questions of ministers and the Government, but the quickest way to deter investment is to send the signal that a target, however stretching, can be summarily ditched.

Last week, Ford called for “ambition, commitment and consistency” from Government. Rishi Sunak did exactly the opposite. He lowered ambition, showed that his Government has no commitment, and created inconsistency and uncertainty. His announcement was bad for the planet and for the economic growth of key sectors that are critical for the transition to real zero.

It was not just the car industry. Vattenfall, the energy company, said that the announcement was a backwards step and that it damages supply chains at a time when skills for developing green heat need to be ramped up massively.

The Prime Minister’s comments on energy concerned me the most. Telling people that energy efficiency is an expensive luxury that they cannot afford is clearly absurd. The cheapest energy is the energy that we do not use.

It should be, and it is. The heat in buildings strategy will lay out how we can bring together energy efficiency with heat decarbonisation. However, it will take time to build up a supply chain that was decimated by the policies of the Tory Government 10 years ago. When David Cameron talked about cutting the “green crap”, he stripped out the investment from that industry. People moved out of it completely and the supply chain was shut down. It is this Government that is now trying to build it back up to the point at which budgets can be spent and real change can start to happen.

Perhaps Rishi Sunak was thinking about the costs to private landlords of improving the efficiency of properties that they own but do not pay energy bills on. Housing is a human right and locking people into energy-inefficient, cold and unhealthy housing is a violation of those rights. His comments about the cost of heat pumps were alarmist. Householders will see cheaper costs as the supply chain develops, but many houses are ready for heat pumps today and Scottish Government grants are the most generous in the UK.

Does Alex Rowley agree that it is important that councils, including Fife Council, use the new powers that are coming in relation to municipal ownership of bus companies and franchising in order to bring public transport into public ownership and under public control, and that the Government’s recently announced community bus fund provides a mechanism for councils to develop that vision and move towards that goal?

To go back to Edward Mountain’s point about the climate change plan, we are less than three months away from Christmas. Does he really expect the UK Climate Change Committee to provide its in-depth analysis for the Scottish Government to work with in order to come up with a plan by December? Does he recognise the impossibility of that and the difficulty that we will have in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to scrutinise that as well as the UK Climate Change Committee’s assessment of the Prime Minister’s announcement last week?

I thank our witnesses for their evidence—it has been useful to get an updated picture for this year. I have a couple of questions. I want to go back to Liam Sinclair’s point on what a strategic transformative approach to embedding culture would look like. I saw a lot of colleagues round the table nodding their heads when Liam was talking, and others have explained what that might look like in terms of services. I was particularly struck by some of the work that Artlink is doing with links to education, mental health and other services.

Can you point to an area in the UK where councils, devolved Administrations and other bodies have taken that leap and said, “Yes, we will do the full Christie—we will tackle preventative spend and invest in culture for all the transformation that we know that it can achieve”? If there is an example that you could point to, that would be useful.

I will rattle on with my second question, which is on other sources of funding. We have had evidence from the Music Venue Trust about not just cultural tax relief, which we have mentioned, but relief for small venues and a potential for a levy on stadium and arena shows. I am struck by the fact that culture makes a lot of money and there is a lot of wealth involved, but I would make a distinction between big culture and the cultural organisations and practices that you are involved with. How can we transfer wealth from big culture to community culture?

Linked to that, do you have any thoughts on a transient visitor levy and other sources of income that could come into the sector during these difficult times? I am struck by that figure of 1 per cent or £18.5 million. That could come from Government, but it could come from a variety of other sources as well.

The Prime Minister’s climbdown on climate shows that he is a politician who is interested only in the next election, rather than in the next generation. What impact will his announcement have on Scotland’s plans to reach net zero by 2045?