Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the biodiversity strategy and delivery plan, should we expect to see something specific on consumption?

I will ask some questions around the UK Internal Market Act 2020 exclusion, and other members may want to come in on that issue as well. There are questions about process and who asked what and when, but I will start by asking the minister about scenario planning. If there is no exclusion under the internal market act, what will be the consequence? Have you planned for that?

It has been useful for us to get clarification on a number of areas this morning, but now I want to look forward. The scheme is ambitious, which is what the Parliament voted for. It would be unthinkable for there not to be some teething issues with the scheme’s operation after the August start. Has any thought been given to what those issues might be? Earlier, the minister mentioned that there will need to be continual analysis to ensure that there will be an adequate number of return points and that CSL will carry out that role. Can we anticipate any issues that might arise—in particular, on the basis of international comparisons—and how CSL might deal with them?

I am aware of the discussions on a heat network in Cupar, but that was happening largely before the heat networks legislation was brought into place. Does Willie Rennie accept that there is now greater legislative certainty around heating frameworks and that propositions for developers to introduce such networks are now better and more investable?

I warmly welcome the report by the NZET Committee. I enjoyed taking part in the inquiry, which is certainly the longest inquiry that I have ever been part of. I hope that it will provide food for thought across the Government about how we change, adapt to threats and realise opportunities as we tackle the climate and nature emergencies. I agree with Monica Lennon that the report has a lot of hope in it. There is the hope that we can tackle climate change by working hard in our communities and realising the opportunities and energy for change that they contain.

We heard about some really inspiring examples of climate ambition and leadership from around Scotland, but, at the same time, we heard about the inconsistency between councils, especially when it comes to setting and planning for climate targets. The latest Climate Change Committee report on Scotland’s progress emphasised three words: delivery, delivery and delivery. That means that we need to see action on the ground in communities everywhere, not just good examples.

It is simply not enough for councils to focus solely on their own buildings, land and vehicle fleets. Those bodies must be responsible for overseeing the delivery of area-wide climate targets, not just corporate plans for internal carbon reduction.

However, through the inquiry, we found that only 53 per cent of councils have set area-wide emission targets. We heard from the council in Freiburg, in Germany, which has shown exactly the type of climate leadership that we need councils across Scotland to adopt. From acts of citizens and cross-sectoral participation in decision making to a dedicated climate neutrality unit embedded in the organisation, the council in Freiburg has led the way internationally. We need to support councils in Scotland to get into that same space, which I think Freiburg managed to get into well over a decade ago.

Introducing a formal duty for local authorities to report progress and planning action on the ground will be critical if we are to make that step change. However, that additional responsibility on councils must come with the tools to deliver, including wholesale reform of local taxation powers to raise income and to drive behavioural change through road user charging or even carbon land taxes, for example.

We must also recognise the need to rebalance the conversation between national and local government, and I will be seeking to get the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill reconsidered in this Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

A number of committee members have mentioned our visits. The visits were inspiring, particularly the one to Dundee, where we saw the progress that has been made in taking forward climate initiatives over many years. Councils should be applauded for recognising that long-term funding for the voluntary sector is absolutely needed.

I am delighted that the Scottish Government has also recognised the need for long-term investment in the third sector. I am particularly delighted by the cabinet secretary’s earlier announcement that another 20 climate hubs are to be funded.

I will talk about one of the hubs that I hope will be funded. Greener Kirkcaldy is an amazing example of how we can put justice at the heart of climate action. Its Cosy Kingdom project is tackling poverty and disadvantage by getting energy advice to people who need it the most. As a result, Fife now has highest number of referrals to Home Energy Scotland of any other council area. What it has achieved is quite remarkable.

The investment through climate hubs will need to continue to drive change and to expand and scale up the work of Greener Kirkcaldy and a range of other organisations. I really look forward to seeing the results of that.

Councils that are working in collaboration with communities are well placed to drive real change when it comes to transport, which remains one of the biggest carbon emitters in Scotland. The national transport strategy and the record investment in active travel are charting an ambitious course towards the 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres. Throughout the inquiry, we also saw brilliant examples of how councils are shaping national policies to fit the communities that they serve, including the councils in Dundee and Stirling investing in on-street EV charging.

However, we too often see antiquated local transport strategies that no longer reflect what communities want or need, or that do not reflect our new priorities in the national transport strategy. There is a real opportunity for councils to change that through, for example, making use of the franchising powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and the newly launched community bus fund to transform local bus networks in ways that really start to serve local communities.

Of course, the climate emergency cannot be separated from the nature emergency. We have seen record investment through the nature restoration fund. I would like to highlight some investment that has been taking place in Fife. An additional £3.3 million of funding has been granted to nature restoration projects—from community co-design work for new active travel routes along the River Leven, which benefits active travel and biodiversity, to restoring urban meadows across the kingdom. We can invest in both the nature and climate emergencies together, working with communities.

The scale of the challenge in meeting the 2045 target will require a step change in the relationship between local government and private investors to deliver more co-financed decarbonisation projects. Throughout the inquiry, we have been inspired by Aberdeen City Council’s initiative to issue municipal bonds, as well as by a number of other initiatives.

There is much to read and reflect on in the report, which we do not really have enough time to do this afternoon. However, we will continue to come back to the report in the months to come. We must keep building on these achievements and commitments, and I really look forward to continuing that work as a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.

Does that suggest that there is no cliff-edge date? You spoke earlier about the somewhat dubious nature of the significance of particular cliff-edge dates. Is it sensible to have one?

This has been a very insightful and candid session. I want to go back to retained EU law for a moment. Philip Rycroft talked about the bill seeking to do the impossible, but we are where we are, I guess.

Professor Gallagher talked about the options and the imagination that needs to be applied by Administrations and the House of Lords on the way forward. I would like to hear your brief reflections on what might have been a better way forward on revising and making decisions about retained EU law. In the current bill, there has been what is, in effect, a carve-out of financial services. There are issues around the cliff edge and, perhaps, the phased examination of retained EU law. What would have been a better and more credible way forward? May I start with Philip Rycroft, please?

Nuclear power is costly and leaves a long and toxic legacy for future generations. Given that nuclear generation costs twice the price of offshore wind, does the cabinet secretary agree that it not only makes environmental sense to focus our investment on truly renewable energy options but makes economic sense?

Have you advised the UK Government in relation to the Energy Bill and offshore wind mitigation?

If there is anything that you can forward to the committee on that matter, too, that would be very useful.