Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a development of what is a very common-sense measure, as far as I see it, which has been under development in Scotland for a number of years. It is a development in the sense that there are parts of Scotland where you can already travel with an integrated ticket—there are parts of our transport system where it has been rolled out—but the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will be looking to extend it across modes of travel right across the country. I understand that she is currently working on a business case and so on, because working with industry will be very important to making the system work.

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.

I cannot confirm today when the bill will be introduced, but I completely take on board your comments about the committee requiring sufficient time for scrutiny. I want that to happen, too. Of course, you are right to point out the deadline under the current regime for when the climate change plan would be due. That is uppermost in my mind.

I cannot confirm the content of the bill today, but I have indicated the main points of the bill. I also go further: it is very much my intention to keep the bill as slim as possible. I want to retain as much of the original framework as possible and make the adjustments that are necessary for continued progress.

I agree with you about the moral imperative. I also agree that the transformation that we need, which I talked about, is never going to be deliverable without—as you described it—butting up against contextual and economic factors and issues, from across the Parliament, with getting legislation passed. There is no pathway to net zero that is without complication, but we pursue it nonetheless because of the imperative that you talked about.

You spoke of political realities. There have been issues that the Scottish Government has tried, but not managed, to get cross-party agreement on. I do not want to labour that point too much, because my core issue is that the pathway was always beyond what was achievable. Therefore, I will say that that has not caused us to have to change the 2030 target, but it has not helped. I point to the issues that we faced on low-emission zones, the deposit return scheme being completely derailed by the Scotland Office and other matters.

The other issue that you raised involved the powers of the Scottish Government. I have had to give a lot of thought to that. We do not have powers over energy, which is a huge policy area that is critically important to the net zero pathway, and, at times, it has been difficult to work constructively with the UK Government. There have been times when we have done so really well, such as on the emissions trading scheme and the zero-emissions vehicle mandate, but there have also been times when it has not worked. For example, the Scottish Government has been pushing for changes to fuel duty and other matters, such as CCS, for a long time, but making those changes has not been possible.

In future, I ask for as much consensus as we can possibly get across the Parliament, particularly for the more benign matters that we have to proceed with. I have to be clear about the realities of trying to do this as a devolved Government, but I always commit myself to trying to work with the UK Government—and in the context of the election, any incoming Government—to make the fastest progress possible.