Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thanks for that. I am sure that there is more work for this committee to do on that as well.

The third area of that work is the net zero test. We understand that the Government is now piloting a net zero test. Do you have any thoughts on the progress of that work, including on where it is beginning, what the early outcomes are and the prospects of ensuring that the whole of Government is able to apply that test whenever it is making balanced decisions?

I will ask about the joint budget review work between the Parliament and the Scottish Government. The first strand of that work has already been delivered and there is a narrative on climate alongside the budget. This year, a taxonomy has been introduced that attempts to classify areas of spend and an annex has been attached to the budget. Is that piece of work meaningful, or is there room for improvement? What is your assessment of it?

Just to be clear, though, do you see the net zero test as an absolutely critical part of how the Government mainstreams climate thinking across all departments?

I also want to ask about the role of impartial information in allowing businesses and individuals to make choices. I note that, in its letter, which came out at the weekend, the regulatory review group on heat in buildings talks about

“The opportunity for public misunderstanding”

and

“conflicting messages ... coming in from a variety of sources including the media”.

What are your thoughts on how the Government can ensure clarity of message, given the speculation that there often is in the media and given that vested interests will argue against particular policies that conflict with their own businesses? It can be quite confusing and difficult for the public to get a genuinely impartial view on what the best options might be for them.

Clearly, the risk register shows that there needs to be work on public awareness and access to impartial information.

Okay.

On the back of that, I would be interested to hear whether you feel that the Government is making enough progress on systemic change. Systemic change might not come up in relation to the progress that is made from year to year to meet annual carbon reductions, but it might point to increasing capacity and more of a change in systems that would deliver progress in the years to come and beyond 2030. We might also consider the relevance of that for the 2045 target. We are looking at big, systemic changes. Is Government on track to turn that supertanker around?

So, there might be a point when the net zero test has been piloted in a particular department that would allow for reflection about how it has driven certain decisions or improved decision making.

Last year, the clean heat industry wrote to the First Minister to urge the Scottish Government to move forward with its heat in buildings bill as soon as possible. It said:

“To meet the challenge and maximise opportunities, industry needs certainty”

and that new standards would allow

“homeowners, landlords and supply chains”

to understand

“what they need to do and by when.”

Given that clear steer from industry, does the minister agree that calls from Opposition parties for delay and dilution go against what businesses are telling us that they need in order to deliver the heat transition, with the urgency that is required to tackle the climate emergency?

Do you see a potential conclusion to that bedding in ahead of the TCA agreement being fully revised? I am trying to work out where the issue sits within the agenda for that negotiation and whether there will be certainty as to what an appropriate model is and evidence to back that up.