Seòmar agus comataidhean

Graeme Roy, do you want to come in?

Emily Nurse, I put that question to you.

Do the witnesses from the SFC and the IPPR think that the Scottish Government needs more information in order to devise the first carbon budget? Is any crucial information lacking?

In many ways, it feels like we have been looking at only half the picture. We have been looking at climate and carbon but we have not been looking in sufficient detail at the action, the planning and the fiscal environment to deliver those actions.

Does the way that the bill is structured provide enough time between the CCC offering the technical advice and the Scottish Government—in a chicken-and-egg way—then having to devise a carbon budget that includes all the considerations about what actions are necessary and whether they are affordable to deliver? Is there enough time allowed in the bill to work up that detail, which is essential to our staying on track? Should a specific timeframe be set out in legislation? Is there enough time at the moment?

Emily Nurse, do you have any thoughts on the process post the CCC advice?

I am not sure where we are with time, convener. Is there time for other panel members to come in?

Our witnesses have already touched on aspects of my question in what has been a really great evidence session so far. I want to ask about the way in which the Scottish Government constructs its budgets. You will be aware of the recommendations of the joint working group between the Parliament and the Government, which resulted in colour coding of some budgets, which Professor Ulph alluded to earlier. How far does that approach now need to deepen within the Scottish Government, so that we get the transparency that you have been describing and clarity on the impact of carbon on certain budget decisions and how that might translate into long-term action? Have you any brief reflections on the Government’s progress on its journey towards carbon proofing its work and its considerations?

I presume that that outturn will also tell us about, say, the public sector’s capacity to deliver on low-carbon infrastructure.

I ask you to hold that thought while I move on to ask David Hawkey and Emily Nurse for their reflections on how we got here—on whether public bodies, the Scottish Government and the civil service could have done things differently on the 2020 target. Did certain policies fall off the cliff, perhaps because they were not being developed fast enough between the setting of the 2019 target and where we have got to today? Your brief reflections on that would be useful. Perhaps David could start.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will reflect on the deep disappointment of thousands and thousands of people across Scotland at the return of peak fares. Scrapping peak fares led to an increase in passengers—around 7 per cent—and more income for ScotRail. If bringing back peak fares results in passengers abandoning train travel, that will mean less income for ScotRail. If that happens, will the cabinet secretary consider reversing the position?

Absolutely. This is a big piece of work; it is not something that a parliamentary committee can do on its own. There is a need to equip the whole public sector to think in the long term. I know that the Welsh FGC has been focusing on the skills to plan for 25 years ahead.

I have seen at first hand the benefits of having such a commissioner in Wales. Members might remember that, in 2018, I brought forward a member’s bill to introduce a 20mph safer speed limit for built-up roads in Scotland. At the same time, Wales was considering adopting a similar approach, and I was delighted to be part of that Welsh conversation. The role of the FGC in that debate was hugely important, because she was able to draw together the long-term public health case for communities of a speed limit change. That really helped to establish the right basis for moving the issue forward in the Senedd in a cross-party and consensual way, which, with hindsight, and looking back at my member’s bill, perhaps we lacked here at Holyrood.

Of course, later on, there were those who sought to make the roll-out of the 20mph limit a political culture war in Wales. However, now that the dust has settled there, we are starting to see the long-term benefits bed in, starting with huge and dramatic reductions in road casualties on Welsh streets. That is partly down to the work of the public health sector in Wales and the Future Generations Commissioner in leading that debate.

There are many other examples of where that commissioner has been pivotal in driving reform. I understand the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns about the growth in the number of commissioners more generally in Scotland, but there is good practice from Wales about how its commissioner has worked closely with Audit Wales and other commissioners to share staff, reduce costs and maximise joint working. We should learn from that in any review that the Parliament undertakes of our commissioner landscape.

I again thank Sarah Boyack for securing this debate. She reflects our shared priorities to raise the focus of the public sector on the needs of future generations and a sustainable Scotland. I wish her good luck, and I will listen closely to the words of the minister in closing.